Angelica Hale Vs Emporia State University Et. Al - Motion For Summary Judgment (Highlighted)

Case 5:16-cv-04182-DDC-TJJ Document 47 Filed 10/06/17 Page 1 of 60
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF KANSAS
ANGELICA HALE,
Plaintiff
v.
Case No. 16-4182-DDC-TJJ

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.
HALES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ALL CLAIMS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. CASE SUMMARY 1
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 4
Retaliation for Reporting and Speaking Out Against Racism and Discrimination 4
Retaliation Against Plaintiff Continues at Emporia State University 14
III. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL UNDISPUTED FACTS 19
A. Plaintiff engaged in protected opposition to discrimination 19

B. Plaintiffs protected speech was on a matter of public concern 20
C. Plaintiff suffered adverse employment action 20
D. ESU violated its own Title VII racial harassment policy 21
IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW 21

V. LAW AND ARGUMENT 23
1. Protected Activity 23
2. Title VII Retaliation and Section 1983 First Amendment Retaliation 24
3. Adverse Employment Action 26
4. Causal Connection 28
5. Defendants must proffer legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons 29
VI. DAMAGES 30
VII. CONCLUSION 30
INDEX OF EXHIBITS Introduced into evidence by:
# Subject AH Decl. MH Decl. Memo

Page
A. Transcript, July 7, 2015 meeting G. Alexander & M. Hale 1 3, 20,
21
B. Partial transcript, Aug. 17, 2015 M. Dow & M. Hale 2 8
C. Email exchange with attorney David Trevio, Aug. 12, 2015 4 3 9
D. Partial transcript of SLIM Aug. 26, 2015 faculty meeting 4 9
E. Associated Press Big Story re: Hales claim of racial 5 10, 20
harassment at Emporia State University, July 29, 2015
F. Transcript of ESUs Sept. 9, 2015 Press Conference 6 10
G. Bulletin story with photo of Kevin Johnsons fingers 7 11
H. Text msgs. re: hate speech incident on April 8, 2015 8 12, 20
I. Jackie Viettis remarks to the Emporia Connection 9 14
J. Reader comment on investigation in Emporia Gazette 10 14
K. Allison Garretts comment on KVOE re: model of diversity 11 15
L. ESUs Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Plan 12 15
M. Email message asking KVOE to publish Court Orders 13 5 16
N. Email msgs. with Sherman Smith at Topeka Capital Journal 6 16
O. Koch President Dave Robertson and visiting ESU students 7 17
P. Robert Page speaking with media & Hales on Nov. 19, 2015 8 17
ii
Q. Pages new position announced at Metro. Comm. College 9 18

R. Attorney Fred Gray given honorary doctorate at ESU 14 18
S. Letter to ESU administration from Black faculty and staff 15 19
T. M. Hale June 15, 2015 email to David Cordle 11 20
U. M. Hale Sept. 18, 2018 email to Jackie Vietti 25 12, 18 20, 21
V. Angelica Hales Open Letter to Alexander, July 27, 2015 18 20
W. Alexanders job announcement for Angelica Hales position 19 20
X. Email re: ESUs policy on shunning the Hales 22 15 21
Y. BSU agendas involving Vietti and shunning of the Hales 23 16 21
Z. ESUs Title VII policy against repeated ignoring 26 21
AA. Photo of Allison Garretts Cabinet 11 15
BB. KVOE story about Melvin Hales dismissal Feb. 6, 2016 19 10
CC. ECF 30, Order on Defendants Motion to Dismiss Complaint 1
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
American Civil Liberties Union of Md., Inc. v. Wicomico County

999 F.2d 780, 785 (4th Cir.1993) 25
Applied Genetics Int'l, Inc. v. First Affiliated Secs., Inc.

912 F.2d 1238, 1241 (10th Cir. 1990) 22
Bacchus Indus., Inc. v. Arvin Indus., Inc.

939 F.2d 887, 891 (10th Cir. 1991) 22
Bennett v, Windstream Commcns, Inc.

792 F.3d 1261, 1265-66 (10th Cir. 2015) 22
iii
Berry v. Stevinson Chevrolet

74 F. 3d 980, 984, 986 (CA10 1996) 26
Bloch v. Ribar
156 F.3d 673, 678 (6th Cir.1998) 25
Conaway v. Smith
853 F.2d 789, 794 (10th Cir. 1988) 22
Connell v. Signoracci
153 F.3d 74, 79 (2d Cir.1998) 25
Crown Central Petroleum Corp. v. NLRB

430 F.2d 724, 731 (5th Cir. 1970) 30
Deepwater Invs., Ltd. v. Jackson Hole Ski Corp.

938 F.2d 1105, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) 22
DeLoach v. Bevers
922 F.2d 618, 620 (10th Cir.1990) 25
Dooley v. Parks & Recreation/or the Parish a/Ea. Baton Rouge

No. 10-31254,2011 U.S. App. Lexis 15278 (5th Cir. 2011) 29
Estate of Smith v. Marasco

318 F.3d 497, 512 (3d Cir. 2003) 28
Goodwin v. City of Pittsburgh

480 F. Supp. 627 (W. D. Pa. 1979) affd 624 F.2d 1090 (3rd Cir. 1980) 29
Grant v. Hazelett Strip Casting Corp.

880 F.2d 1564, 1569, 51 EPD Par. 39,245 (2d Cir. 1989) 5
Hamilton v. Boise Cascade Exp.

280 F. App'x. 729, 731 (10th Cir. 2008) 29
Henry v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

616 F.3d 134, 148 (2d Cir. 2010) 14
iv
Hicks v. City of Watonga. Okla.

942 F.2d 737, 743 (10th Cir. 1991) 22
Jackson v. RKO Bottlers of Toledo, Inc.,

743 F.2d 370, 375 (6th Cir. 1984) 23
Jimenez v. City a/New York

605 F. Supp. 2d 485,529 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) 28
Krouse v. Am. Sterilizer Co.

126 F.3d 494, 503 (3d Cir. 1997) 28
Krynicky v. University of Pittsburgh

742 F.2d 94, 103 (3d Cir. 1984) 26
Lackey v. County of Bernalillo

No. 97-2265, 1999 WL 2461, at 3 (10th Cir. Jan. 5, 1999). 25
La Grande v. DeCresente Distrib. Co.

370 Fed. App'x 206, 212 (2d Cir. 2010) 24
Ragusa v. Malverne Union Free Sch. Dist.,

No. 08-5367-cv, (2010) 24
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press v. AT & T Co.

593 F.2d 1030, 1064 (D.C.Cir.1978) 25
Rochon v. Gonzales
438 F. 3d, at 1213 26
Sarno v. Douglas Elliman-Gibbons & Ives. Inc.

183 F.3d 155, 159 (2d Cir. 1999) ` 24
Smart v. Board of Trustees

34 F.3d 432, 434 (7th Cir.1994) 25
Sumner v. U.S. Postal Serv.

899F.2d 203, 209 (2d Cir. 1990) 28
v
Thoman v. Philips Med. Sys.

2007 WL 203943 (D.N.J. 2007) 29
Todisco v. United States

298 E2d 208 (9th Cir. 1962) iii
United States v. McKeever

169 E Supp. 426, 430 (S.D.N.Y. 1958) iii
Vitus v. Beatrice Co.

11 F.3d 1535, 1538-39 (10th Cir. 1993) 21
U.S. SUPREME COURT
Allen v. Wright
468 U.S. 737, 751, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 3324, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984) 30
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986) 21
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White

548 U.S. 53, 67, 68 (2006) 26
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). 22
Crawford v. Metro Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County

555 U.S. 271, 129 S. Ct. 846, 849 (2009) 23
Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed.

497 U.S. 871,883 (1990) 24
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp..

475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986) 22
Perry v. Sindermann
408 U.S. 593, 597 (1972) 25
vi
Robinson v. Shell Oil Co.

519 U. S. 337, 346 (1997) 26
Univ. of Tex. Southern Med. v. Nassar

133 S. Ct. 2517, 570 U.S., 186 L. Ed. 2d 503 (2013) 24
Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc.
454 U.S. 464, 472, 102 S.Ct. 752, 758, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982) 30
STATUTES AND RULES
Title VII
First Amendment
42 U.S.C. 1983
42 U.S.C. 2000e-3(a)
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)

Fed. R. Evidence 901(a)
Kan. Rule 6.7
Local Rule 7-1
vii

DISTRICT OF KANSAS
ANGELICA HALE,
Plaintiff
v.

Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ALL CLAIMS
(Plaintiffs Motion, Declaration of Angelica Hale and Declaration of Melvin Hale filed separately.)
Angelica Hale (Plaintiff or Hale), appearing Pro Se, hereby submits this
memorandum, pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 56 and D. Kan. Rule 6.7, in support of its motion for
judgment as a matter of law.
I. CASE SUMMARY
This is an employment case involving claims of Title VII Retaliation and Section 1983
First Amendment Freedom of Speech Retaliation. On July 14, 2017, this Court denied in part and
granted in part Defendants motion to dismiss this action, thus permitting Hales Title VII
retaliation claim to move forward against Emporia State University, and her Section 1983 First
Amendment retaliation claim to move forward against the three named defendants in their
individual capacities. That order, ECF 30, is attached as Exhibit CC, and is incorporated by
reference herein. Hale brings her motion for summary judgment at this stage of the litigation
because defendants do not appear to be acting in good faith in the production of relevant
documents in discovery. Defendants are withholding potentially damning information related to
their internal investigation. Rather than continue to beat this dead horse, wasting the Courts
time, plaintiff would rather move this case forward in accordance with Rule 1 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Court is well-aware that in most instances extensive discovery is commonly more
beneficial to plaintiffs who need to procure evidence from defendants to support their claims in
employment cases. This plaintiff, however, and her husband, were mindful of the need to collect
and preserve a trove of direct and indirect evidence in situ during the course of the events upon
which this case is built. Plaintiff believes that she already has in her possession facts that will
suffice to move against defendants on liability. Defendants do not have any burden at this stage
of the litigation except to prove that their alleged retaliatory conduct was lawful, and that they
have a legitimate non-discriminatory reason (LNDR) for not renewing Hales contract in July
2015. Plaintiff does not possess any such information, but will fully cooperative in responding to
any discovery requests which defendants believe will support their alleged LNDR.
Defendants argued that Hales Complaint was deficient because it failed to state a claim
sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). They stated that: Hales
Title VII claim fails because Hale did not engage in protected opposition to discrimination. As
such, she does not fall within the statute and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. Hale also fails to state a claim for relief with respect to her First Amendment retaliation
claim, as her alleged speech was not on a matter of public concern. (ECF 18, Motion to
Dismiss, pg. 3 3). They stated further that Hale will not be able to establish the first element of
2
a prima facie case. She did not engage in protected opposition to discrimination when she
complained regarding the racial slur written on the notepad in the graduate students office. A
complaint of a single racist remark by a colleague, without more, is not opposition protected by
Title VII. Id., pg. 4-5, citing Robinson, 365 Fed. Appx. at 112. (ECF 18, Motion to Dismiss,
pgs. 4-5).
The Court disagreed, and stated that:
Robinson differs from the facts alleged in plaintiffs Complaint here for several reasons.
First, Robinson involved a report of just a single racial remark Finally, plaintiff alleges
that, when Dr. Hale met with Dr. Alexander on July 7, 2015, Dr. Alexander said she was
blindsided by allegations of misconduct direct[ed] towards her and Rittgers. Id. 76
(emphasis added). This allegation confirms that plaintiff complained not only about the
April 8, 2015 incident but also about Dr. Alexander and Ms. Rittgers. These allegations
suffice to state a retaliation claim under Title VII and thus survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion
to dismiss. (ECF 30, Order on Motion, pg. 10 1).
Defendants argued that:
While racial discrimination may be a matter of public concern when not tied to a personal
employment dispute, Connick, 461 U.S. at 148 n.8, speech regarding grievances about
internal departmental affairs, disputes over the term of employment, and workplace
frustration are not matters of public concern. Brammer-Hoelter v. Twin Peaks Charter
Acad., 492 F.3d 1192, 1205 (10th Cir. 2007). Here, like in the cases above, the thrust of
Hales alleged speech was that a racial slur incident had occurred in the workplace and
that she was frustrated with the workplace. It is clear that Hale was intending to address a
personal grievance at the time she spoke. Her alleged speech regarding the racial slur
incident arose out of her own working conditions. . (ECF 18, Motion to Dismiss, pg. 12
2).
The Court disagreed, and stated that:
In Connick v. Myers, the Supreme Court stated that racial discrimination is a matter
inherently of public concern. 461 U.S. at 148 n.8; see also Quigley v. Rosenthal, 327
F.3d 1044, 1060 (10th Cir. 2003) (explaining that Connick stated that racial
discrimination, at least in the context of public-employment, is a matter inherently of
public concern. (quoting Connick, 461 U.S. at 148 n.8)). (ECF 30, Order on Motion,
pgs. 12-13).
3
Finally, as to the matter of Eleventh Amendment qualified immunity for the above-
named defendants, in their individual capacities, the Court stated that:
Qualified immunity gives government officials breathing room to make reasonable but
mistaken judgments about open legal questions. Lane, 134 S. Ct. at 2381 (quoting
Ashcroft v. alKidd, 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)). (ECF 30, Order on Motion, pg. 14
1).
The court thus concludes that plaintiffs Complaint alleges that the individual defendants
violated a clearly established constitutional right when they terminated plaintiffs
employment contract as retaliation for her exercise of First Amendment protected speech.
Plaintiffs Complaint sufficiently alleges facts to support this claim. So, defendants are
not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage in the proceedings. (ECF 30, Order on
Motion, pg. 15 3). (emphasis added).
The Court has significantly narrowed the issues in this case; hence, plaintiff will support
her pleading with factual evidence to buttress her claims. Hale will first provide a factual
background that supports her allegations that she was retaliated against for reporting and
complaining about racial discrimination which is ongoing, and then she will provide undisputed
material facts which confirm that she engaged in protected activity on a matter of public concern,
and that she suffered adverse employment actions for her protected activity for which defendants
cannot proffer a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason, thus she is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Retaliation for Reporting and Speaking Out Against Racism and Discrimination
1. Hale offers the Court exceptional direct evidence of animus on the part of Dr. Alexander
in the form of the transcript of a lawful recording taken on July 7, 2015 by her husband Dr.
Melvin Hale (hereinafter Dr. Hale) of a conversation he had with Dr. Alexander in her office
4
in SLIM shortly before plaintiff learned that her contract was not going to be renewed. Direct
evidence of discriminatory motive may be any written or verbal policy or statement made by a
respondent or respondent official that on its face demonstrates a bias against a protected group
and is linked to the complained of adverse action.1 Grant v. Hazelett Strip Casting Corp., 880
F.2d 1564, 1569, 51 EPD Par. 39,245 (2d Cir. 1989). The background of the recording is that
Dr. Alexander had visited the faculty on the fourth floor where both of the Hales offices were
located, and they heard her going door-to-door talking with everyone present on the floor, but
had noted that she left the floor to return to her office on the third floor without speaking to
either of them. This incident occurred shortly after the Hales had reported the hate speech
incident to the ESU Provost, David Cordle, the Director of Human Resources, Judy Anderson
and the ESU Police Department, including Chief Chris Hoover. They thought that this was
strange, and they decided that one of them should go and talk with Dr. Alexander to see if she
was avoiding them. The transcript of that conversation is attached as Exhibit A, and is
incorporated by reference herein. The Attorney General of Kansas was provided this recording in
Case. No. 15-cv-4947.
2. Alexander stated: [W]hat I dont appreciate is that you went all over, you know, to the
Police. That statement reeks of contempt and rage, a precursor to revenge. This case is about
revenge, and in this recording, there is ample evidence of indignation amid Alexanders ranting
about her disappointment with the Hales. She stated: [W]hat I am saying I was hoping, and we
talked about this before you came and everything, that its Kansas. Right? Its Kansas. And you
knew that it was going to be a different...its different. But the only way were ever going to
overcome that is by having people who are sort of pioneers to teach people that theyre really
1
EEOC, Revised Enforcement Guidance on Recent Developments in Disparate Treatment Theory., Text, (January
23, 2009), https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/disparat.html.
5
wonderful examples of human kind, which I thought that you and Angelica could do. Clearly,
Dr. Alexander is speaking of her admiration for the Hales in the past tense. Then, there were also
several outright lies told by Dr. Alexander, only two of which will be addressed here. First, Dr.
Alexanders assertion that she heard nothing further about the hate speech incident after the
Hales spoke with her on April 8, 2015 in her office, the afternoon the incident occurred. This is
false. Her assertion that she talked with Brenda the day the incident occurred also is false. (Dr.
Cordle stated to the Hales that Dr. Alexander told him that she spoke with the graduate student
the same day or following day, on April 9, 2015, and that assertion too is false.) The Declaration
of Melvin Hale (hereinafter MH Decl.) 1, which is attached and is incorporated by reference
herein.
3. First, on a daily basis, and then on a weekly basis, Angelica Hale conferred with the
graduate student, who reported to her, and on whose notepad the racial epithet NIGGAZ was
found, inquiring whether or not Dr. Alexander had contacted her. The answer was always a
bewildered No. The Declaration of Angelica Hale (hereinafter AH Decl.) 1, which is
attached and is incorporated by reference herein. Dr. Alexander took no action whatsoever. In
her conversation with Dr. Hale, Dr. Alexander talks as if no one had mentioned the hate speech
incident to her since the Hales met with her on April 8th after the faculty meeting, and that she
was blindsided to hear the matter being escalated to the Provost. She stated: You already told
me what you told me once. You told me one time. You came down here. I told you that I would
look into it. Alright. And I was looking into it, and you just went right on over my head. You
went right on over my head, and you wrote me that email that said because I had neglected my
fiduciary duty about that, which I had not. But you hadnt talked to me about it since the first
time we discussed it.
6
4. Plaintiff and her husband separately approached SLIM faculty head, Dr. Mirah Dow
(hereinafter Dr. Dow) about a week after April 8, 2015, and told her about the incident. Dr.
Hale asked Dr. Dow to talk to Dr. Alexander to see what she was doing about the hate speech
incident. AH Decl. 2, MH Decl. 2. Dr. Dow has been at SLIM for over sixteen years. In a
conversation after work with Dow that Dr. Hale recorded on August 17, 2015, the following
comments were exchanged:
Dr. Hale: Well why? What is the problem? How far do they think they can go with
this Mirah? I guess thats my question. I mean, all we have been doing is trying to be
very above board, and outright, and direct.
Dr. Dow: Theyve got a lot to lose. Theyve got a lot to lose, and theyre gonna
[fight], no matter how dirty it is. They would in a minute, put you and me on the
defensive, so that we have to represent ourselves to prove otherwise. Thats whats
happening. Thats the game here.
-----------------------
Dr. Hale: When we went to see David Cordle, he said that Gwen told him that she
went to Brenda the same day that this incident happened. We know that thats not true
because Brenda herself has said that, and is on record saying, even to our attorney when
he asked her, that Gwen did not come to her until sometime in June How can she get
away with that kind of a story?
Dr. Dow: Because theres nobody that witnessed it, I guess. But I listened to what
Gwen told me, and I believe exactly what Brenda said.
-----------------------
Dr. Hale: What is the tone there now, and what are people saying about me? I mean
have you heard anything?
Dr. Dow: She doesnt want to hear about it. I tell you for sure. She does not
wantshe doesnt want to hear it, man! Whenever you first told me. Even though it
7
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 better or different at least about this if
[something was done]. Why dont you just ask him what it is that hed like for you to
do?
Yeah, it would have [been] within the next day or two [after you told me]. The
reason why I know it was like a day or two, it was because, uh, I had a hard time catching
up with her. She was, I cant remember what it was, what all she was doing right then,
but she wasnt there for me to just walk in and speak to. You know what I mean? I kinda
had to wait to figure out when I could catch up with her I just watched to see, when, if
she was in her office and I could just tap on the door. And thats exactly how I did it.
A partial transcript of Dr. Hales conversation with Dr. Dow is attached as Exhibit B,
MH Decl. 3, and is incorporated by reference herein.
5. Dr. Alexander lied when she stated that she had only been confronted about the hate
speech incident once, as if to say that Dr. Hale had dropped the ball. Dr. Dow related that she
brought up the matter up with Alexander at least twice, and that the last time she mentioned it
she was abruptly shut down and told not to bring it up again. Dr. Alexander hoped that the matter
would simply vanish. As soon as Dr. Alexander realized that her inaction on the matter had been
reported to Dr. Cordle, and to law enforcement, she went ballistic. She then began weaving a tale
of falsehoods that would culminate in making Hale and her husband the wrongdoers. Moments
after Dr. Hale spoke with Dr. Alexander on July 7, 2015, she met with Dr. Vietti (AH Decl. 3).
The defendants were dismissive of the allegations and evidence submitted by the Hales, and they
twisted and manufactured facts to disparage plaintiff. The subsequent conduct of the
defendants was as heinous as that of corrupt law enforcement officers who engage in planting
evidence.
8
6. An email exchange with the Hales and their then-attorney, David Trevio, on August 12,
2015, documents his interview of the graduate student, who states unequivocally that Dr.
Alexander did not contact her to discuss the April 8th incident until sometime in June of 2015. A
copy of those email messages is attached as Exhibit C, AH Decl. 4, and is incorporated by
reference herein.
7. In her recorded rant on July 7, 2015, Dr. Alexander stated: No, no, no. I talked to [the
student] that day. I went up there that day or the next day. But anyway, Im not even going to
argue with you about what happened. You know, I dont really know what happened. If Dr.
Alexander had visited the student the day it happened, or even the following day, such a
comment makes no sense. She ought to have known more than Dr. Hale, and she should have
taken the time to view the evidence in the notebook. Was she that incompetent? The truth is that
none of that occurred. The only thing that Dr. Alexander said that was true was that she didnt
really know what happened, and that is only because she didnt care and hadnt investigated. The
unfortunate thing is that ESU, including Dr. Vietti and Dr. Cordle, chose to follow Dr.
Alexanders lead, which is why this matter has ended up in federal court.
8. Dr. Alexander publicly demonstrated her anger and animus towards the Hales and their
protests against racism and discrimination in a faculty meeting which Dr. Hale recorded on
August 26, 2015. A transcript of that recording is attached as Exhibit D, MH Decl. 4, and is
incorporated by reference herein. The audio is on the MarchOnEmporia.com website.2 In that
meeting, for which Dr. Hale had sent a prior notice to Dr. Dow to officially place him on the
agenda to say a few words about the upcoming march against discrimination and racism
scheduled for September 15, 2015, (which inexplicably Dr. Dow did not do), Dr. Alexander and
Associate Dean of SLIM, Dr. Andrew Smith, can both be heard angrily shouting, and shutting
2
Faculty Meeting Transcript, March on Emporia, http://marchonemporia.com/faculty-meeting-transcript.html.
9
Dr. Hale down, and preventing him from sharing letters of support from faculty around the
country. Dr. Smith interrupts Dr. Hale and called his protected activity Inappropriate! Dr.
Alexander cut Dr. Hale off, and went on a long disjointed rant demeaning the march, stating that
no one on the faculty was to even discuss the matter until after the results of the investigation
were announced. As will be seen further on, the investigation was replete with outright
fabrications and abject falsehoods. Obviously, Dr. Alexander was privy to the results, and
intended to prevent the Hales from offering a diverse opinion. The actions taken in the faculty
meeting are a prima facie violation of First Amendment protections. Plaintiffs contract was not
renewed by this same Dr. Alexander, who showed nothing less than a belligerent manifestation
of her hostility towards Dr. Hale in the faculty meeting, for simply engaging in protected activity
against racism and discrimination, something no library school dean should ridicule. Plaintiff
came up with the idea for a march when the Associated Press interviewed her on the controversy
at ESU published on July 29, 2015. A copy of the AP story is attached as Exhibit E, AH Decl.
5, and is incorporated by reference herein.
9. Defendants intentionally maligned plaintiff for speaking out on an unpopular subject at
ESU, as evidenced in the press conference conducted by defendant Vietti and ESU General
Counsel Kevin Johnson on September 9, 2015. A transcript of the press conference as found on
the KVOE website on April 2016 is attached as Exhibit F, AH Decl. 6, and is incorporated by
reference herein. Although ESU situated the investigation as a personnel matter, when it suited
their purposes, they did not hesitate to provide intimate unflattering information to the press. In a
February 6, 2016 KVOE news story, the university informed the press that Melvin Hale's last
day at Emporia State will be May 17, and his final paycheck will be issued May 20. A copy of
the story is attached as Exhibit BB, MH Decl. 19.
10
10. Despite the fact that Hale was moved to the fourth floor as a result of a complaint of
discrimination, and tensions involving a long-term White employee, nothing about that dynamic
was brought into focus in the press conference. Instead, Dr. Vietti and Dr. Johnson wove a
fictional story in which the graduate student and Hale both had offices on the third floor (not the
fourth floor where they actually had offices), making it easier for the student to appear to be
looking for Dr. Alexander, whose office was indeed on the third floor. Johnson engaged in an
intense make-believe narrative in which he places words in the mouth of the student and the
plaintiff. Johnson says verbatim:
Ill just use my hand on the table if you can translate that whatever you translate it into.
Everything was on I believe the 3rd floor of SLIM. The students office was at one end of
a hallway, I think there was a T-section, she was right near the T-Section, I believe.
Anyway, it was a separate office that she was using but it wasnt dedicated to her use. It
was storage. And at the time there was a lot of furniture and things being moved and
stored, people were in and out all the time She showed it to Mrs. Hale, um and said,
words to the effect that I was going to report this to the dean, but shes not here so Im
telling you about it so it could be passed on or something of that nature, I dont know the
exact words. And so Angelica said ok and she took a picture of it, of the word on the
page with her camera, her phone, on her phone.
What Johnson is saying is a complete fabrication, and injudicious conduct for an
officer of the court. A photo of Johnson using his fingers to illustrate this falsehood was
printed in the ESU Bulletin and is attached as Exhibit G, AH Decl. 7, and is
incorporated by reference herein. That Alexander was present that day is supported by the
Hales text messages, which are attached as Exhibit H, AH Decl. 8, and are
11
incorporated by reference herein. ESU told the press that: If Dean Alexander had been
there that day, theres a good chance that neither Mr. and Mrs. Hale would ever have seen
it. So, its kind of a fluke that they saw it to begin with!
11. The facts show that:
#1 - Dr. Alexander was present in SLIM throughout the day on April 8, 2015.
#2 The student and plaintiffs offices were both located on the fourth floor.
#3 The student brought the matter to the attention of her immediate supervisor, Hale.
#4 Dr. Hale accompanied Dr. Alexander to her office after the faculty meeting.
12. Numerous other lies were told, including the false story that people were coming and
going in and out of the office all day, and that the students office was similar to the library
commons, which was a lounge on the first floor, and that the students office was open 20 hours
a day; that the office wasnt dedicated to the students use (the student was issued a key and was
surprised to find her office unlocked on April 8th); that there was a T in the hallway where the
students office was located (no such physical configuration exists in any of the SLIM offices);
that plaintiff went to Dr. Hales office and showed it to him and they were offended (that never
happened, he was in a faculty meeting with Alexander); that Hale gave the public the impression
that the slur was found in her office; and finally, that there was no way whatsoever that the slur
could have been directed at the Hales because the graduate student is white (the Hales were the
only African Americans in the department).
13. The actions that defendants took against Hale reinforced a White-dominated management
culture which appears to have no conception whatsoever of constitutional safeguards for
protected speech. It is not surprising that ESU received a Jefferson Muzzle Award in 2016 for
removing the press from a forum in 2015 related to Hales complaint of discrimination. The
12
Thomas Jefferson Center has awarded Jefferson Muzzles to those individuals and institutions
responsible for the more egregious or ridiculous affronts to free speech during the preceding
year. It has been doing so for over twenty-five years.
14. Dr. Vietti, in a supposed forthright declaration to the Emporia Connection, the Black
ESU Alumni group said in part the following, as reported on the Google Plus page of one of its
members Allie Flanary on September 21, 2015; and Flanary, in a demeaning reference to the
Hales prefaces Dr. Viettis remarks to the Emporia Connection with her own:
Not today, asshats.
Greetings from Emporia State University. I hope this communication finds you well,
and I hope to see many of you at your upcoming reunion in Emporia. As members of
Emporia State Universitys Black Alumni Chapter, I wanted to provide you with an
update regarding the Universitys investigation of an alleged hate crime last spring and
racial discrimination within SLIM. This investigation began on July 10, 2015 has now
been concludedEach allegation was investigated and the investigation found no
evidence of racial discrimination in any instance. The internal investigation included
personal interviews of 19 witnesses and resulted in approximately 350 pages of notes,
documentation and other informationBoth independent reviewers concluded that the
internal investigation and its findings were thorough and appropriateI again ask that we
move forward from here to lay the foundation for the next 150, working together to build
a better, stronger, more inclusive Hornet Nation in which no one is marginalized, no one
is disrespected or subjected to any kind of slur, and no ones voice is unheardThank
you for engaging with me in my hard, absolutely honest conversation and for hearing my
voice. I look forward to seeing many of you at the Sunday brunch during your upcoming
13
reunion here at Emporia State University. Yours for ESU, Jackie Vietti, Interim
President.
Dr. Viettis entire remarks to the Emporia Connection as published by Allie Flanary on
Google Plus are attached as Exhibit I, AH Decl. 9, and are incorporated by reference herein.
15. The defendants knew that they had an audience eager and willing to support anything
they declared simply by employing the code words thorough, fair and logical. One such
believer wrote in the comments section of an online Emporia Gazette article on September 10,
2015 that The verdict is in and the majority of Hornet nation believes that a fair inquiry has
been conducted A screen shot of that comment is attached as Exhibit J, AH Decl. 10, and
is incorporated by reference herein.
16. The Interim President, the Provost, and the Dean of the Library School, all cloaked with
the power and prestige of those positions, willfully fed incontestable lies and falsehoods to
students and the public, creating animus in others. A supervisor who has knowledge of the
protected activity need not expressly order an agent to take adverse action against an employee
(in retaliation); a jury can find causation where the supervisor encouraged treating the employee
adversely. Henry v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 616 F.3d 134, 148 (2d Cir. 2010).
Retaliation Against Plaintiff Continues at Emporia State University
17. Emporia State University has embarked upon a public relations campaign whereby they
situate themselves as a Model of Diversity and Inclusion, while banishing plaintiff and her
husband to a black hole of silence. In the process they are conspiring with local, statewide and
national media to suppress any and all coverage of news regarding the federal lawsuits now in
progress against them.
14
18. In an interview on KVOE, since becoming ESUs president in 2016, Allison Garrett
stated that Our goal is to become a model for diversity, equity and inclusion. Lofty
commentary coming from a campus where all twelve members of the Presidents Cabinet in
2017 are White. Photos of Dr. Garretts Cabinet is attached as Exhibit AA, AH Decl. 11, and
is incorporated by reference herein. Plaintiff stated in her complaint that ESU fosters a white-
dominated culture that does not appear to feel the need to diversify, starting from the top down.
(ECF 1, Complaint, pg. 5 39). A partial transcript of Garretts remarks is attached as Exhibit
K, AH Decl. 11, and is incorporated by reference herein.
19. In their newly created Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Plan, ESU is now promoting this
objective as the Fifth Goal of the University. At the time the Hales were employed at ESU, ESU
only had four goals. Plaintiffs protests apparently had a major effect on stated goals, but it
appears that despite articulating the semantics of such a goal, they are no closer to living that
reality in university governance than they were before. ESUs Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
Plan is attached as Exhibit L, AH Decl. 12, and is incorporated by reference herein. In it,
Garrett states in the Introduction: This will not only broaden and deepen your own
understanding, it will demonstrate to others the broad commitment ESU is making to diversity,
equity and inclusion. The statements made in this plan are a source of great emotional and
psychological pain and suffering to plaintiff. Garrett and ESUs laudable public pronouncements
are but a continuation of the false rhetoric of retaliation initiated by the defendants.
20. One of the strongest indicators of the power of ESU and its backers is the control they
currently appear to have over news media outlets. Jessie Wagoner, a local reporter for the
Emporia Gazette newspaper, and a graduate of ESU, refuses to print stories that update the
community on the legal developments in this case, most notably the July 14, 2017 decision
15
handed down by Federal Judge Daniel Crabtree. While certain claims were dismissed, the heart
of the litigation, Hales Title VII claim against ESU, and the Hales combined claims against
eight administrators in their individual capacities survived, stripping them of Eleventh
Amendment qualified immunity at this stage of the litigation. The Courts orders were provided
to Wagoner and also to Ron Thomas, General Manager of the local radio station, KVOE (Voice
of Emporia). Both refused to publish the story. The ESU Bulletin, the student newspaper, was
provided the same information, and predictably, they too refused to make the students aware of
these important developments. A copy of the email that Dr. Hale sent to KVOE is attached as
Exhibit M, AH Decl. 13, MH Decl. 5, and is incorporated by reference herein.
21. In a related development, not surprisingly, KVOE claimed to have lost the audio of
ESUs September 9, 2015 press conference when it was subpoenaed in September 2017 in Case
No. 17-cv-4019. If plaintiff had not had the presence of mind to record it from the KVOE
website in 2016, the audio of that damning performance wouldnt exist, or at least would not be
made available to her.
22. Sherman Smith, Executive Editor of the Topeka Capital Journal newspaper (TCJ), was
2017
contacted by plaintiff regarding the Courts July 2015 opinions, and he seemed to be very
interested in the story. Smith insisted that the Hales meet with him in person for a story at the
Topeka Capital Journal. The Hales traveled to Topeka on July 31, 2017. During a lengthy
interview, conducted by veteran TCJ reporter Tim Carpenter, the Hales learned that Smith was
an ESU graduate. As of the filing of this motion on October 6, 2017, the TCJ has yet to publish a
single word from that interview, or any news whatsoever on the Courts ruling, but in a recent
email to Dr. Hale suggested that it might do so in a month or so. Exhibit N, MH Decl. 6, and
is incorporated by reference herein.
16
23. Dr. Mirah Dow stated that she had concerns about ESU supporters that had deep
pockets, and had no qualms about playing dirty. Whether due to personal bias, or external
influences, the aforementioned individuals have a lot of answering to do as to why they will not
report on a story of major significance to Kansans. ESU is nicknamed Koch University in view
of the fact that so many of its graduates are affiliated with Koch Industries, which has the deepest
of pockets. Plaintiff has good reason to be concerned that this connection plays a role in the
suppression of this story. Kevin Johnson serves as the Co-Director of ESUs Koch Center for
Leadership and Ethics, an organization which received close to a million dollars from Koch
principals. The bio of Koch Industries Chief Operating Officer Dave Robertson is attached as
Exhibit O, MH Decl. 7, along with a story about students visiting Koch Industries, and is
incorporated by reference herein. Robertson is a graduate of Emporia State University.
24. Other individuals who have played a major role in the continuing whitewash include
Robert Page, a college diversity consultant. He was the first of many diversity professionals
that ESU paid to rubber stamp their assertion that ESU is a leading model of diversity and a
friendly campus. As an African American, Page put a Black face on the universities campaign
in the early days. The Hales personally confronted Page at the now-infamous diversity meeting
on November 19, 2015, in which the press was kicked out of the meeting by Page, in violation of
the First Amendment and the Kansas Open Meetings Act. Plaintiff and her husband made sure
that Page knew that their voices were not being heard, and that the investigation was a fraud.
He has ignored them. Photographs of Page speaking with reporters and Dr. Hale after the
meeting are attached as Exhibit P, MH Decl. 8, and are incorporated by reference herein. In a
KVOE interview Page said that the University disconnecting and separating the Hales
concerns from the diversity initiative would be crucial going forward. Page stated that ESUs
17
new strategy would be to rely upon the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Plan which situates the
school as a national model and leader of university diversity. Page stated in a separate interview
on KVOE that ESU intended to market their initiative through partnering and working with the
media. Page was recently employed as the Director of Inclusion and Engagement at the
Metropolitan Community College in Kansas City, Missouri. A copy of the announcement of
Pages new role is attached as Exhibit Q, MH Decl. 9, and is incorporated by reference herein.
25. Another collaborator, Fred Gray, an aging African American civil rights attorney from
Alabama, capable of mouthing a relationship to Rosa Parks, was paraded around ESU on the
date of the first anniversary of the September 15, 2015 protest march to give the impression that
the college was racially exemplary. ESU also scheduled President Garretts inauguration kickoff
for that day. Gray was rewarded with an honorary doctorate. Gray also stated that he had
received a substantial sum of money as an honorarium and sold a fair number of his books. A
KVOE news story on Fred Gray is attached as Exhibit R, AH Decl. 14.
26. Jason Brooks, an Emporia-born African American alum of ESU from a family of ESU
alums, and whose wife is a graduate of SLIM, turned traitor on the Hales and their cause, and
was rewarded with a promotion from Director of Diversity and Inclusion at ESU to Associate
Dean of Diversity and Inclusion. Brooks not only supported the Hales concerns, but had actual
knowledge of prior instances of discrimination at ESU, as evidenced in a letter he co-authored
from Black faculty and staff in which it was stated in part when plaintiff wrote her Open Letter:
We call on the University to take this incident as an opportunity to reaffirm and
strengthen its commitment to Diversity. As Ms. Hale acknowledges in her open letter:
ESU has no tenured African American professors and only four tenure-track African
American professors, yet its over 150 years old?!
18
This observation is one that is woefully accurate, painting a vivid picture of the
shortcomings of the Emporia State University at seeking out, attracting, and retaining
motivated and qualified black professionals to lead our campus.
The Letter from Black and Latino Faculty to ESU is attached as Exhibit S, AH Decl.
15, and is incorporated by reference herein.
27. In an earlier interview on KVOE in 2015 Brooks stated that there are a lot of systemic
issues that are happening thats involving a lot of our students, a lot of our community members,
and so when it all of a sudden just kind of bubbles up, or sizzles, its like, oh wow! More
recently Brooks has fallen in line with ESU policy, and is now stating that there are no
significant instances of racism or discrimination at ESU, only minor micro-aggressions. AH
Decl. 16.
28. Plaintiff could offer up substantially more evidence demonstrating that ESU and its
current administration continues to retaliate by misrepresenting itself, but space does not allow.
The falsehoods that were born out of the defendants reprehensible conduct in 2015, and their
obsessive desire to demean and marginalize plaintiff and her voice is ongoing. As will be
discussed in Law and Argument below, ongoing retaliation is an actionable matter.
III. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL UNDISPUTED FACTS
Undisputed Facts Principally in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment on

Title VII retaliation and 1983 First Amendment Retaliation claims.
The exhibits referenced in this Statement Of Material Undisputed Facts are attached, and are
incorporated by reference herein, and by reference in either Angelica Hales or Melvin Hales
Declarations, which were filed separately.
A. Plaintiff engaged in protected opposition to discrimination.
1. Dr. Hale complained to Dr. Alexander on plaintiffs behalf. Exhibit A, MH Decl. 10.
19
2. Plaintiff and her husband reported the racial slur found in the students office to Dr.
Alexander, and asked her to investigate it. Exhibit H, AH Decl. 8.
3. Plaintiff and her husband reported the racial slur to Provost Cordle. Exhibit T, MH Decl.
11.
4. Plaintiffs husband wrote a letter to Dr. Vietti asking her to investigate the racial slur, and
reports of his belief that they were victims of retaliation by Dr. Alexander. Exhibit U,
MH Decl. 12.
5. Plaintiff met with Ray Lauber and discussed the April 8, 2015 hate speech incident, along
with other earlier incidents of discrimination. MH Decl. 13.
6. Plaintiff took her concern about the racial slur to the ESUPD. AH Decl. 17, MH Decl.
14.
7. Dr. Hale met with Dr. Alexander on July 7, 2015 to share his concerns and plaintiffs
concerns about the racial slur and previous incidents of racial discrimination by both her
and Debra Rittgers. Exhibit A, MH Decl. 1.
B. Plaintiffs protected speech was on a matter of public concern
8. Plaintiff complained in an Open Letter about discrimination, institutional racism, and the
lack of upward mobility for African American professors at ESU. Exhibit V, AH Decl.
18.
9. Plaintiffs concerns about racial discrimination at ESU were published nationwide by the
Associated Press. Exhibit E, AH Decl. 5.
10. Plaintiff attempted to file a report about the April 8th incident with the ESU Police
Department. AH Decl. 17, MH Decl. 14.
C. Plaintiff suffered adverse employment action
11. Plaintiffs work performance was deemed satisfactory before she complained about
discrimination. Exhibit W, AH Decl. 19.
12. Plaintiffs contract was renewed several times before she complained about
discrimination. AH Decl. 20.
20
13. Plaintiff was told that her position would be made permanent before she complained
about discrimination. AH Decl. 21.
14. Dr. Alexander encouraged plaintiff to enroll in college courses at ESU to complete her
Bachelors degree so that she would have greater upward mobility before she complained
about discrimination. Exhibit A, AH Decl. 21.
D. ESU violated its own Title VII racial harassment policy
15. Ray Lauber told Mirah Dow not to communicate with the Hales after they reported
discrimination. Exhibit X, MH Decl. 15, AH Decl. 22.
16. The ESU Black Student Union quit communicating with plaintiff and her husband after
Dr. Vietti met with them following the September 15, 2015 march against racism.
Exhibit Y, MH Decl. 16, AH Decl. 23.
17. Special Agent from the Topeka Bureau of the FBI visited ESU on December 2, 2015, and
met with the Hales in Dr. Hales office. Dr. Cordle and Kevin Johnson told the FBI agent
that the Hales were banned from campus, and arent supposed to be here. MH Decl.
17, AH Decl. 24.
18. ESU Interim President Jackie Vietti adamantly refused to meet with plaintiff or her
husband despite their continual pleas to meet with her so that they could tell their side of
the story. Exhibit U, MH Decl. 12, 18, AH Decl. 25.
19. ESUs policy against racial harassment and repeated ignoring. Exhibit Z, AH Decl. 26.
IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show 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); accord Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986); Vitus v.
Beatrice Co., 11 F.3d 1535, 1538-39 (10th Cir. 1993). 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,
21
Bennett v, Windstream Commcns, 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.
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). Summary judgment may be granted if the non-moving party's evidence is merely
colorable or is not significantly probative. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250-51. "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 and evidence to ascertain that
there are no disputed facts, and that it is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
22
V. LAW AND ARGUMENT
1. Protected Activity
The Supreme Court has stated that to support a claim for retaliation under Title VII a
"plaintiff must establish: (1) that he engaged in activity protected by Title VII; (2) that he was the
subject of adverse employment action; and (3) that there exists a causal link between his
protected activity and the adverse action of his employer." Jackson v. RKO Bottlers of Toledo,
Inc., 743 F.2d 370, 375 (6th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff has shown in its Statement of Material Facts
that she engaged in protected activity; that her opposition to discrimination was a matter of
public concern; and that her contract was not renewed after she complained about discrimination.
She also demonstrated that she and her husband were subjected to repeated ignoring by
faculty, staff and students at the direction of ESU administrators, in direct violation of their own
Title VII policy on racial harassment.
Reporting or opposing discrimination meet the requirements for Title VII protected
activity. In defining the "opposition clause," the Supreme Court has rejected a definition of
"oppose" that would require an employee to "actively" and "consistently" oppose an employer's
practice or to "instigate" or "initiate" the opposition. 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 on her own initiative, but in answering questions during
an employer's internal investigation. 555 U.S. 271, 129 S. Ct. 846, 849 (2009). Plaintiff did
that, and much more. Hale reported racially discriminatory conduct, answered questions for
Human Resources regarding discrimination, and participated in protest marches demanding an
end to racism and retaliation.
23
2. Title VII Retaliation and Section 1983 First Amendment Retaliation
Title VII provides a right of action to "persons aggrieved." 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(1), and
plaintiff is within the "zone of interest" that Title VII seeks to protect. 131 S. Ct. at 870 (quoting
Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed., 497 U.S. 871,883 (1990)). The defendants refused to renew
plaintiffs 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 Hales protected activity, her
employment contract would have been renewed. Retaliation is a separate claim from
discrimination, and does not require racial discrimination. Even if the employee cannot prevail
on the underlying claim of discrimination (for example, where the employee does not satisfy the
severe or pervasive threshold for proving a hostile work environment claim), s/he can prevail
on a retaliation claim if s/he in good faith, reasonably believed the employer was engaging in
discriminatory conduct. See La Grande v. DeCresente Distrib. Co., 370 Fed. App'x 206, 212 (2d
Cir. 2010); Ragusa v. Malverne Union Free Sch. Dist., No. 08-5367-cv, (2010), U.S. App. Lexis
12640, *8 n,4 (2d Cir. June 21,2010) (finding that the plaintiff "need not be disabled within the
meaning of the ADA to pursue her retaliation claim, providing she can demonstrate 'a good faith,
reasonable belief that the underlying challenged actions of the employer violated the law'"
(quoting Sarno v. Douglas Elliman-Gibbons & Ives. Inc., 183 F.3d 155, 159 (2d Cir. 1999)
(citation omitted)).
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. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517, 570 U.S., 186 L. Ed. 2d 503 (2013). Hale has provided evidence
which confirms that until she complained of discrimination, her status in SLIM was not in
24
question, and that but-for her involvement in protected activity at ESU she would not have been
subjected to an adverse employment action.
Finally, according to a Tenth Circuit decision, Any form of official retaliation for
exercising one's freedom of speech, including prosecution, threatened prosecution, bad faith
investigation, and legal harassment, constitutes an infringement of that freedom." In Lackey v.
County of Bernalillo the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals stated that Although retaliation is not
expressly discussed in the Constitution, it may be actionable inasmuch as governmental
retaliation tends to chill citizens' exercise of their constitutional rights. American Civil Liberties
Union of Md., Inc. v. Wicomico County, 999 F.2d 780, 785 (4th Cir.1993) (citing Perry v.
Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 597 (1972)). Any form of official retaliation for exercising one's
freedom of speech, including prosecution, threatened prosecution, bad faith investigation, and
legal harassment, constitutes an infringement of that freedom. See Smart v. Board of Trustees, 34
F.3d 432, 434 (7th Cir.1994); Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press v. AT & T Co., 593
F.2d 1030, 1064 (D.C.Cir.1978). (emphasis added). To prevail on a claim of unconstitutional
retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, a plaintiff must establish (1) he was engaged in
constitutionally protected activity, (2) defendant's actions caused him to suffer an injury that
likely would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in that activity, and
(3) defendant's adverse action was substantially motivated as a response to the plaintiff's exercise
of constitutionally protected conduct. Bloch v. Ribar, 156 F.3d 673, 678 (6th Cir.1998); see
Connell v. Signoracci, 153 F.3d 74, 79 (2d Cir.1998). An act taken in retaliation for the exercise
of a constitutionally protected right is actionable under 1983 even if the act, when taken for a
different reason, would have been proper. DeLoach v. Bevers, 922 F.2d 618, 620 (10th
Cir.1990) (citation omitted). No. 97-2265, 1999 WL 2461, at 3 (10th Cir. Jan. 5, 1999).
25
While Title VII applies to both private and public employers, by contrast, Section 1983
applies only to defendants who acted under color of state law. See, Krynicky v. University of
Pittsburgh, 742 F.2d 94, 103 (3d Cir. 1984) (holding that University of Pittsburgh and Temple
University acted under color of state law).
ESU has continued its retaliatory conduct by instituting an unrelenting campaign to
silence her dissent by falsely purporting to be a model agent for diversity, equity and inclusion,
while simultaneously disparaging her worthy complaints and ignoring her pleas for justice.
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. See, e.g., Rochon v. Gonzales,
438 F. 3d, at 1213 (FBI retaliation against employee took the form of the FBIs refusal, contrary
to policy, to investigate death threats a federal prisoner made against [the agent] and his wife);
Berry v. Stevinson Chevrolet, 74 F. 3d 980, 984, 986 (CA10 1996) (finding actionable retaliation
where employer filed false criminal charges against former employee who complained about
discrimination). 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 provisions 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).
Defendant ESU is continuing to cause plaintiff harm outside the workplace.
26
3. Adverse Employment Action
How "adverse" must an employer's actions be to constitute retaliation? The Supreme
Court addressed this question in Burlington, creating an "objective standard" under which an
action challenged as retaliatory must be "materially adverse" to a reasonable employee.
Burlington at 68. The Court in Burlington resolved a circuit split on the definition of "adverse
employment action." Until 2006, the federal courts of appeals were divided over how severe an
employer's adverse action must be to fan within the statute. Most broad: "Any activity
reasonably likely to deter" an employee from vindicating protected rights. (Ninth Circuit)
Middle ground: An employment action that a reasonable employee would find "materially
adverse," i.e. resulting in tangible injury or harm. (Seventh Circuit, D.C. Circuit) Most narrow:
The employer has taken an "ultimate employment action" (i.e. firing, demotion) against the
employee. (Fifth Circuit, Eighth Circuit). The Supreme Court ultimately resolved the "Circuit
Split" in favor of a middle-of-the-road "materially adverse" standard, but defined "materiality"
objectively from the perspective of a "reasonable employee." Hale believes that her claims
survive under the narrowest reading considering that her employment contract was not renewed.
Hales injuries are tangible. She lost her job and her career and finances have been
destroyed. The facts suggest that she in fact would have been made a permanent employee at
ESU, but less than a month after taking her concerns about discrimination at ESU to the Provost
and the ESU Police Department, and to Dr. Vietti, on or about July 20th she was informed that
her contract was not going to be renewed. Before the month of July was over, Dr. Alexander and
the defendants had changed their demeanor towards her, and began showing antagonism and ill
will, and ultimately took adverse employment actions against her. A subsequent bad faith
investigation by ESU added insult to Hales injuries.
27
Plaintiff has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that defendants displayed no
restraint whatsoever when lying, and aggressively encouraged and coerced others to do the same.
In direct response to falsehoods promulgated by defendants, plaintiff was forced to go public
with the facts as she understood them in her Open Letter to Dean Gwen Alexander. The Open
Letter was written and published after Dr. Alexander had informed plaintiff that her contract
would not be renewed. Plaintiff had to ask Dr. Alexander numerous times about her contract
renewal following July 7, 2015 before she received a negative response. Dr. Alexander avoided
her and led her on before delivering the bad news.
4. Causal Connection
The courts generally recognize three methods for proving causation, and the first one is
temporal proximity between the protected activity and the adverse action. The other two methods
are: (2) proof that other similarly situated employees were treated more favorably; and (3) direct
proof of the employer's retaliatory intent. Jimenez v. City a/New York, 605 F. Supp. 2d 485,529
(S.D.N.Y. 2009) (citing Sumner v. U.S. Postal Serv., 899F.2d 203, 209 (2d Cir. 1990)). Here,
the evidence points to both the first and last methods as establishing a causal connection. If the
plaintiff shows that the decision-maker was aware of the protected conduct, then the plaintiff
may use the temporal proximity between that knowledge and the adverse employment action to
argue causation. [A] suggestive temporal proximity between the protected activity and the
alleged retaliatory action can be probative of causation, Thomas, 351 23 F.3d at 114, but
[e]ven if timing alone could ever be sufficient to establish a causal link, . . . the timing of the
alleged retaliatory action must be 'unusually suggestive' of retaliatory motive before a causal link
will be inferred." Estate of Smith v. Marasco, 318 F.3d 497, 512 (3d Cir. 2003) (quoting Krouse
v. Am. Sterilizer Co., 126 F.3d 494, 503 (3d Cir. 1997)). The Fifth Circuit has held that although
28
"close timing" can support a prima facie case of retaliation, "once the employer offers a
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason that explains both its adverse action and the timing, the
plaintiff must offer some evidence from which the jury may infer that retaliation was the real
motive. Dooley v. Parks & Recreation/or the Parish a/Ea. Baton Rouge, No. 10-31254,2011
U.S. App. Lexis 15278 (5th Cir. July 22, 2011). Defendants cannot offer such a reason.
5. Defendants must proffer legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for taking adverse actions
against Hale that are in fact not pretextual
[A]t the pretext stage the plaintiff must produce evidence beyond the mere assertion that
the alleged justification is implausible and show that discriminatory animus actually motivated
the employer's decision (citing pre-Reeves decisions)); Hamilton v. Boise Cascade Exp., 280 F.
App'x. 729, 731 (10th Cir. 2008)(Although we do not require pretext plus, specifically that a
plaintiff demonstrate that the reason was false and a motive for discrimination, the falsity
combined with other circumstances in the case must permit the inference that unlawful
discrimination was a motivating factor in the decision); Thoman v. Philips Med. Sys., 2007 WL
203943 (D.N.J. 2007). Plaintiff has met this burden.
Plaintiff was never admonished for unsatisfactory performance, but nonetheless will
provide the Court with an example of employee conduct that was used as pretext for adverse
employment actions. In Goodwin v. City of Pittsburgh 480 F. Supp. 627 (W. D. Pa. 1979) affd
624 F.2d 1090 (3rd Cir. 1980) the court performed a mixed motive analysis when It concluded
that a retaliatory motive . . . played a substantial causal role in the decision to fire [plaintiff]
when, on only one occasion, he called his boss a liar, under circumstances which were, at the
least, provoked, and, at most justified. The court continued, [t]o be sure, calling a supervisor a
liar is a serious matter. However, it takes on less significance if it occurs privately, during a
29
heated debate initiated by the employer, about the employees decision to engage in protected
activities. The court ruled that Goodwin had satisfied Title VIIs burden of showing pretext and
entered judgment in his favor. [T]he employee's language must actually be "indefensible in the
context of the grievance involved." Crown Central Petroleum Corp. v. NLRB, 430 F.2d 724.
VI. DAMAGES
Plaintiff has standing to request relief. Defendants cannot claim that Hale lacks standing
to file suit. At the core of the standing doctrine is the requirement that a plaintiff "allege
personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be
redressed by the requested relief." Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 3324, 82
L.Ed.2d 556 (1984), citing Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation
of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 472, 102 S.Ct. 752, 758, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982).
VII. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the undisputed evidence conclusively shows that
Defendants violated Title VII Retaliation and First Amendment Retaliation law, and there are no
genuine issues of material fact. Wherefore, ANGELICA HALE respectfully requests that the
Court grant its motion for summary judgment. Such a ruling would leave the appropriate
compensatory, exemplary and punitive damages, if any, as the issues to be resolved at trial.
Dated: October 6, 2017 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Angelica Hale, Plaintiff Pro Se

P.O. Box 34179
Los Angeles, CA 90034
angelicahale@yahoo.com
916-690-7927
30
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ALL CLAIMS
I hereby certify that on this 6th day of October, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing
with the Court using the email address KSD_Clerks_Topeka@ksd.uscourts.gov, and a notice of
electronic filing was sent via the CM/ECF system to Defendants attorney of record, Carrie
Barney, who receives electronic notification in the case at carrie.barney@ag.ks.gov.
/s/ Angelica Hale

Angelica Hale, Plaintiff Pro Se
EXHIBIT A
Transcript of Dr. Melvin Hales Conversation with Dr. Gwen Alexander

JULY 7, 2015
Gwens Office in SLIM
Conversation Begins @ 3:10
3:10 Gwen: Alright. What can I do for you?
3:11 Melvin: Well, I just want to talk to you about a couple of things.
3:14 Gwen: Okay. Ive got 15 minutes.
3:16 Melvin: One course is the archives thing Im working on.
3:17 Gwen: Uh huh.
3:20 Melvin: The handbook thing. Im going back and reviewing all that. I appreciate you sending me
the soft copy.
Gwen: Youre welcome.
Melvin: Cause I definitely needed that.
Gwen: I thought you had that to begin with when I sent it out
Melvin: I dont remember getting a soft copy.
Gwen: I dont know. I sent it out to everybody, and I can look and see if you were copied.
Melvin: Yea, okay. I got it now, so Ill be working on it. Do you have anything you want to talk to me
about? The stuff thats been going on? About what Ive been dealing with the Provost and what have
you on? I mean
Gwen: No. Because I dont even know the details and I dont want to know. You told me
Melvin: You dont want to know?
Gwen: You already told me what you told me once. You told me one time. You came down here. I told
you that I would look into it. Alright. And I was looking into it, and you just went right on over my head.
You went right on over my head, and you wrote me that email that said because I had neglected my
fiduciary duty about that, which I had not, but you hadnt talked to me about it since the first time we
discussed it. So, you could talk to me now, and tell me what you want to, but Ive been kindaAngelica
wouldnt talk to me, wouldnt meet with me. I had no idea of what it was about at the beginning. And
then at 10:30 at night, after Angelica said under the circumstances Im not meeting with you. I mean Im
totallyI was totally surprised. Because before this happened I thought you were enjoying it here. I
thought we had a good relationship. I was so thrilled to have you here. Angelica was justyou knowI
1
was brokenhearted when I got her email to me. I had no idea. So, you know, I had gone to the Provost
and talked to him and we talked about possibly having some kind of more sensitivity training, but you
know, by that, it was too late in the spring semester. And I got caught up in my mothers stroke and her
death and I got a nice card from you guys. I was so flabbergasted when this happened the way it did.
And I reallyits taken me a long time to get a hold of my emotional feelings of disappointment, and
realize that you must have very strong emotional involvement infrom your perspective, and I need to,
you know, step out of it. So you may now talk to me about it if you want and tell me how you feel about
how its going, but, it would be helpful, it would be helpful to meI mean, you know, you went over to
the Provost you know without asking, okay, where are we in this?
Melvin: I didnt get a status from you. No. I did not have a status from you.
Gwen: But you didnt ask me. You didnt ask me.
Melvin: However, there was never any investigation. I kept waiting for you to talk to Brenda. And, cause
thats what I asked, the last thing I asked you to do was to talk to Brenda, and I assumed that right away
something would be done.
Gwen: I talked to Brenda and she said she wasnt upset or concerned.
Melvin: It was much later!
Gwen: No, no, no. I talked to her that day. I went up there that day or the next day. But anyway, Im not
even going to argue with you about what happened. You know, I dont really know what happened. I
know what you told me happened at the beginning, and apparently Brenda said well she didnt even
know if it happened that day because she hadnt looked in that notebook. So, thats what she told me.
Its not like she came in, unlocked her door, and it was right there staring her in her face. She hadnt
looked at that notebook for a while. She kept her class notes I guess in there. Her notes on some
thingsSo I, I, I dont know. But what I dont appreciate is that you went all over, you know, to the
Police. I mean Melvin, I have a different perspective on it than you do, but Im open minded, and I heard
your perspective, and your, your behavior, and your actions since then have made me realize youve
made a lot of assumptions that I didnt see. You, you
Melvin: And these things were followed up to me by a couple of very severe actions that Im assuming
you knew about such as my pay being cut and such as a lot of conversation about demoting me, and
stuff like that, and I dont, I dont, that was the bottom line for me. Im like this is too much.
Gwen: There havent been any conversations about demoting you. We have one student in that archives
program
Melvin: In the summer.
Gwen: Yea, but do we have any coming in in the fall?
Melvin: I dont know. Have we promoted it?
2
Gwen: No, we havent. We dont even have a handbook. No we havent promoted it. I just was able to
arrange that situation of how are we going to pay for it. Recently, which was, we were going forward on
having the people who teach the practicum courses that you know for the certificates in the summer,
but we were still in the throes of that and I handled that as soon as I could, as soon as it was brought to
my attention. I was able to talk to David, and you, I clearly wrote to you about that. Your pay was not
cut. That is not a base pay thing. That is something that we were trying to figure out to handle and
recompense you for. So you know youThe thing about it is instead of talking to me and not expecting
immediate action, because I cant take immediate action. Everything I do has to be approved
somewhere, and it takes some time. So I have done the best for you I know how in every situation, and I
feel that has been not only not appreciated, but I feel that you haveI feel badly that you have not
trusted me to look after your best interest, which if you look at all the outcomes I have done so far.
Melvin: Well, like I told you, I evaluated the circumstances that I saw surrounding me and things that
have very negatively impacted me, and I have to question all that in the context of messagesmaybe
theyre not direct, maybe theyre indirect messages. When you questioned my organizational skills,
when you compare me to Robin, for instance, accepting this title, free of charge, whatever. Whatever it
is, I didnt appreciate being compared to her. I dont appreciate that at all. I dont appreciate that if we
had a conversation about what this job entails
Gwen: I didnt say she accepted that. I said she volunteered.
Melvin: But this was something that was offered to me when I took the job. It wasnt something that
came along later on. It was part of the package.
Gwen: No its not. Its not written down in that letter. Its never been offered that way. I said that we
would like, with your background, to have you do this. Right? And we have been going in that direction.
In the meantime, the Kansas Board of Regents and this Provost says were not adding any new
administrators, so Im trying to figure out a way how we can handle that. There are two ways we can
handle it. We can say, were not going to have this archives certificate, because we didnt have it when
we really didnt have somebody to take care of it. We dont need it as a part of our program. But Im
trying to promote it because we found you who looked as if you would be a good person for that. And in
our discussions, we talked about that. But we only have one student. And we havent promoted it. But I
do need to talk to you about your going over to the Black Caucus. We need to figure out, now that were
doing things, it takes time in higher education to get things going. We dont have a marketing budget.
You know, I pulled that out of our regular OOE as we can. So, Melvin, what I think has to happen is, if we
are going to be able to work together well, we need to trust each other. We need to have good
communication.
Melvin: I agree with that.
Gwen: And if we have different perspectives we need to recognize and respect those perspectives. And
as a matter of fact, theres even a sensitivity thing about diversity coming up very soon, and Im going to
order, and Im trying to decide, its in my email, whether to try to have one, its online where we all look
at it, or just order the CD. Butand I think what Ive told you too, in the past, its in our strategic plan
3
since Ive been here, its in almost every decision I make is I appreciate diversity of all kinds, and I want
you to be here, and I want you to be happy, and obviously youre totally unhappy even though Ive done
everything I know how to do.
Melvin: I wouldnt say totally unhappy, but I would say the fact that to me, this whole incident with
Brenda is being characterized as Oh, it could have happened anywhere, thats not how she brought it
to Angelica. She brought it to Angelica very upset. Her impression was somebody had gone in her office,
and not just written this, but moved things around in her office. Did she tell you all of this?
Gwen: No, she didnt tell me that. No, she didnt tell me that.
Melvin: Moved things around in her office.
Gwen: She didnt tell me that.
Melvin: Left things in her office that werent there, so it wasnt just a single thing that happened.
Gwen: No, and when I talked to her she did not tell me that. So the problem is that its a big
miscommunication. Its a big miscommunication. But the thing is, whoever did it, did it to her, Brenda.
Now, if they did all those things and wrote that in her notebook, you know, I had no idea. All I know is a
word that I had never heard before in her notebook, and she said, oh, shes heard it a lot because of
being from St. Louis.
Melvin: Angelica went in, she not only photographed the notebook, she photographed the whole
officeeverything that Brenda said had been changed and moved in her office. The whole thing.
Gwen: Brenda didnt tell me that. So thats what Im saying. The thing that disturbs meI mean I know
all that disturbs you, but what disturbs me is I didnt get the whole picture. We didnt have an
opportunity to bring Brenda in and talk to you and Angelica and me. Youre the only person Ive talked
to except to go out and say are you feeling okay about this, are you upset. Brenda is like, to me its like,
No, its okay. You know, so I didnt, I didnt, I didnt even know there was more to it than this word. So
Im just saying, apparently, were on two different tracks now. I feel, I feel unappreciated for my
reaching out to friendship with both of you, and as I say, my main emotion when I got that first email
from Angelica I didnt know what she was talking about. I mean nothing.
Melvin: Well, our feeling has been, particularly since the handwriting expert, is that Deb is getting away
with too much. Thats our feeling.
Gwen: I checked on that handwriting expert, and that handwriting expert is the first one that pops up. I
mean she isI dont acknowledge her as a handwriting expert. And I dont knowif you sent her a
different thing, if you sent her a different thing to analyze, she would probably say the same thing. I
dont think shes legitimate. Shes got all that stuff online, but you know, youre an information
professional, you know not to believe everything thats written, or everything that you read. Youve got
a vested interest in that person.
4
Melvin: Let me tell you something that I did read that had nothing to do with that.
Gwen: Alright.
Melvin: There is a Facebook group, you can pull it up now, called WTF303.
Gwen: Whats that?
Melvin: Its a Facebook group. People can set up public groups and people can join them or they can be
invited into those groups. Both Debs daughter Alexa and [Debs] boyfriend Paul and a pretty fair
number of his family, because they all have the same last name, Mains, are all on that page. And the
only comment thats on that home page is something that somebody put up there two years ago, and it
just says What in the nigger! Now that has sat on that group page for two years. Paul is part of it. I
went though and looked at most of the people on that group. They all have Confederate flags posted
talking about pride not prejudice. No, its, its racism. Its clear insensitivity to what that represents to
the black community. And white people that have any sensitivity to black people do not fly Confederate
flags. They dont do it. They know we view it no different than a swastika. But heres Debs daughter, a
member of that group, and her boyfriend, and most of his family. What does that tell me about Deb?
Gwen: Well, it shouldnt tell you anything about Deb because Deb has had a lot of difficulty with that
daughter, and thats not Alexa. Shes got more than one daughter. And I can imagine which daughter
Melvin: Alexa Thomas?
Gwen: Alexa Thomas is her daughter, but theres another daughter.
Melvin: Well Alexa Thomas is the one thats on the group list, and Paul. But Im just sayingand Paul.
Gwen: Well, she may be on the group list
Melvin: And Paul, and most of his family.
Gwen: Paul is probably from a family like that, but you cant, you make assumptions too much about the
way people feel. And I know for a fact that when Angelica was down here, and by the way, youre the
one that asked me to move her.
Melvin: I did.
Gwen: And Angelica
Melvin: I did. And I was the one that was upset.
Gwen: And Angelica wanted to move. I mean, I checked with her. She was not, she was not isolated by
me. I did not move her up there just on a whim. I was requested to move her.
Melvin: Yes. You were. And our request was that she not even be part of that group in the first place
because they are not on her professional, in her professional group, that is not what they do.
5
Gwen: She was helping me. I needed her to be across the hall from me. Now before she was isolated
back there.
Melvin: I viewed that as being the beginning of the end of that whole thing.
Gwen: Okay. Im just saying, weThe thing about it is theres a balance, theres a balance between
freedom of speech. Right? People having their own perspective, and you know there are all kinds of
perspectives, and you know
Melvin: Absolutely.
Gwen: So we know your perspective, and my perspective is I hoped that you would come here and be a
really wonderful role model, and I remember using those words because youre educated, youre
talented. By being a friendly person, and establishing yourself as doing the best you can here, and all
that, and ignoring some things that may come up, I know youre super sensitive to it. Andbecause
thats colored your perspective and your actions, but what I am saying I was hoping, and we talked
about this before you came and everything, that its Kansas. Right? Its Kansas. And you knew that it was
going to be a different...its different. But the only way were ever going to overcome that is by having
people who are sort of pioneers to teach people. That theyre really wonderful examples of human kind,
which I thought that you and Angelica could do.
Melvin: Were competent. We work very hard.
Gwen: Yes.
Melvin: Nobody. Nobody looks at us as being some tokens that are here that are incompetent, or just
taking up space.
Gwen: No, no they dont, and thats because you are competent, you have the qualifications, youre
competent and youre doing the work, and youre making great contributions. Heres the funny part. I
have told everybody how great Angelica is, and I have encouraged Angelica to go get her degree. And
you know, so Im just sayingI have to go to lunch. Its two minutes beforeSo, we can probably talk
about this later if you like, but I think we should have Brenda in on the conversation becauseor even or
even more people becauseRight now its all confidential. I havent even told Deb all of this because
that is gonna make things a lot worse and I dont want it to go there, so I dont know what you would
like to do now.
Melvin: Talk to you.
Gwen: Okay. So when we talk are we just talking saying how we feel, or are we trying to reach some
kind of resolution? What are we trying to do here?
Melvin: I want us to reach a resolution.
Gwen: Okay. Well we have to keep talking about it. And let me tell you what I have to do first. I have got
a deadline for this accreditation thing, and I have got to put every moment I have into it. Now, I was
6
going to be on vacation Thursday. Instead, Ill stay here. That give me two more days to work on this,
which is not going to be enough, but I can meet with you on Thursday.
Melvin: Okay.
Gwen: But this also has to be Angelica because youre always speaking for her. You know, we dont ever
speak.
Melvin: Thats fine. Thats fine. I have no problems with that. I have no problems with trying to work this
out.
Gwen: Okay
Melvin: But there was a lot of fear and concern that I have that I was being retaliated against and
diminished.
Gwen: You know
Melvin: You may not see it. You may not sense the feeling, but that feeling was pretty strong. It was
oblique, it was not direct, but that is how a lot of messages are sent, when they are telegraphed in this
manner.
Gwen: You see, Melvin, Ive got to go right now, but we can pick this up right where weve ended. Shes
supposed to meet me outside. Okay?
Melvin: Okay Gwen.
7
EXHIBIT B
Case 5:16-cv-04182-DDC-TJJ Document 47-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 1 of 40
EXHIBIT C
Print https://mg.mail.yahoo.com/?.src=neo&reason=bkt_myc#5942
Case 5:16-cv-04182-DDC-TJJ Document 47-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 2 of 40 l 72446
Subject: Fw: Draft Letter of Representation/Brenda
From: Angelica Hale (angelicahale
To: reefresh@yahoo.com ;
Date: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 6:09 PM
FYI from earlier email. Trevino talking to Brenda below.
----- Forwarded Message -----

From: David P. Trevino <david@trevino-law-office.com>
To: 'Angelica Hale' <angelicahale
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 3:27 PM
Subject: RE: Draft Letter of Representation/Brenda
I spoke with Brenda and she stated that Dean Alexander brought up the issue sometime in June when she
went to the Dean to inquire about a GA position with the library. Prior to that time, Dean Alexander had not
approached her to investigate the April incident.
Best Regards,
David
Trevino Law Office LC

120 E. 9th Street
Suite 202
Lawrence, KS 66044
Phone: 785-856-8738
Facsimile: 785-856-1374
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, including any attachments, is intended only for the person or
entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. If you are the intended recipient, but
do not wish to receive communications through this medium , please so advise the sender immediately.
E-mail communication is not necessarily secure and may be intercepted during transmission . Exercise
caution when including information in E-mail communications. Any reliance on the information contained in
this message by someone who has not entered into a written fee agreement with the above attorney and/or
law firm is taken at the reader's own risk. Receipt of this communication does not, by itself, create any
lawyer/client relationship with the addressee.
From: Angelica Hale [mailto : angelicahal~

To: David P. Trevino
Subject: Re: Draft Letter of Representation/Brenda
ok, thanks for the update.
1of6 9/29/201 7, 7:58 PM

Angelica
From: David P. Trevino <david@trevino-law-office.com >

To: 'Angelica Hale' <an elicahal
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 8:54 AM
Subject: RE: Draft Letter of Representation/Brenda
Angelica:
I noticed that the first cell phone number you provided is different from the one that you just provided by one
digit.
I will call Brenda at the new number you provided sometime today.
Thank you.
David
David P. Trevino
Attorney at Law

120 E. 9th Street
Suite 202
Lawrence, KS 66044
Phone: 785-856-8738
Facsimile: 785-856-1374
do not wish to receive communications through this medium, please so advise the sender immediately.
From : Angelica Hale [mailto:an elicahal

Sent: Tuesday, August 11 , 2015 6:36 PM
To : David P. Trevino
Subject: Re: Draft Letter of Representation/Brenda
Hi David ,
She is probably afraid and not interested in being involved . I don't know what else to say if you talked to the person
whose cell is 3 1 4 -
2 of6 9/29/2017, 7:58 PM

Angelica
From: David P. Trevi _ o ~<~d~aviiJitlid@

nru ~trieivi
inioi
-laiwi-ioiffiicFe~.c~o_m>
To: 'Angelica Hale' <Q.ngelicahale
Sent: Tuesday, August 11 , 2015 4:39 PM
Subject: RE: Draft Letter of Representation
Angelica:
I called the number but the person denied that her name was Brenda. She refused any additional questions.
She may call me and let me know when she first met with Dean Alexander.
David
David P. Trevino
Attorney at Law

120 E. 9th Street
Suite 202
Lawrence , KS 66044
Phone: 785-856-8738
Facsimile: 785-856-1374
caution when including information in E-mail communications . Any reliance on the information contained in
From: Angelica Hale [mailto:an elicahal

Sent: Friday, August 07 , 2015 10:42 AM
Subject: RE: Draft Letter of Representation
Brenda's cell: ( 3 1 4 ) -
-------- Original message --------

From: "David P. Trevino" <david@trevino-law-office.com>
Date : 08/07/2015 9:16 AM (GMT-06:00)
To: 'Melvin Hale' <reefresh@yahoo.com>
Cc: 'Angelica Hale' <angelicahale. .
Subject: RE : Draft Letter of Representation
3 of6 9/29/201 7, 7:58 PM

Melvin and Angelica:
A few questions I need clarified : Did Dean Alexander meet with Brenda the day of the incident? If not, how
do you know for certain they did not meet that day? If Dean Alexander met with Brenda some other date and
time, do you know when they met to discuss the incident. If so, from whom did you receive this
information?
Thank you for consideration.
Best Regards,
David P. Trevino
Attorney at Law

120 E. 9th Street
Suite 202
Lawrence, KS 66044
Phone: 785-856-8738
Facsimile: 785-856-1374
do not wish to receive communications through this medium , please so advise the sender immediately.
From: Melvin Hale [mailto:reefresh@yahoo.com]

Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 2:16 PM
Cc: Angelica Hale
Subject: Re: Draft Letter of Representation
Hi David ,
I have attached a Word document with our edits. Information in red has been added, and
information to be redacted shown with a strikethrough. We look forward to this letter being
presented to ESU .
Thanks very much,
Melvin & Angelica
From: David P. Trevino <david@trevino-law-office.com >

To: 'Melvin Hale' <reefresh@yahoo.com >
4 of 6 9/29/201 7, 7:58 PM

Subject: Draft Letter of Representation
Melvin:
Please review the attached proposed letter to opposing counsel. The attached document is a rough draft.
Please review with Angelica and provide corrections and identify errors or omissions. I will modify
accordingly.
Best Regards,
David
David P. Trevino
Attorney at Law

120 E. 9th Street
Suite 202
Lawrence, KS 66044
Phone: 785-856-8738
Facsimile: 785-856-1374
E-mail communication is not necessarily secure and may be intercepted during transmission. Exercise
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
www.avast.com
5 of6 9/29/2017, 7:58 PM

www.avast.com
www.avast.com
Avast logo www.avast.com
6 of6 9/29/2017, 7:58 PM

EXHIBIT D
PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT OF THE AUGUST 26, 2015 SLIM FACULTY MEETING
0:03 Dr. Mirah Dow "And so, in the tradition of getting organized for a meeting, I
invited you all to share items from the agenda, and so I hope I
haven't left out anything, and I want to remind you that you can
send those to me at any time. I keep a list of those as they evolve
over the course of two weeks, and that's what we finally have.
And you can even share items at the last minute as you think of
them. The procedure shouldn't keep us from having what we need
on that agenda."
0:35 Dr. Robin Kurz "I actually have one to add.
0:36 Dr. Mirah Dow "Alright."
0:37 Dr. Robin Kurz "And I think it would follow really nicely either before or after the
communities of practice, talking about national adjunct faculty,
f-a-c-u-1-t-y. And this is, I guess, Sarah [Sutton] and I have been
talking about this, but, like ... "
0:57 Dr. Mirah Dow "You don't have to tell us all about it now, That's fine .
(Garbled)
1:01 Dr. Robin Kurz "I don't remember anymore .. . (nervous laughter)"
1:04 Dr. Mirah Dow "Is there anything else?"
1:05 Dr. Robin Kurz "No. Not from me."
1:09 Dr. Andrew Smith (Garbled) "A bit on technology."
1:10 Dr. Mirah Dow "What's that?"
1:12 Dr. Andrew Smith "I need to ask people about technology, so just add that in, if you
would. I think I'm missing something."
1:21 Dr. Mirah Dow "What did you add?"
1:23 Dr. Robin Kurz "National adjunct faculty."
1:24 Dr. Mirah Dow "Oh, I thought you had added something else."
1:30 Dr. Melvin Hale "And Mirah, did you get mine already I sent? Okay, I was going
to say a few words on the march."
1:38 Dr. Andrew Smith "I'm opposing that. Not appropriate."
1:43 Dr. Gwen Alexander (Clearing her voice) "I'll say a few words on the march."
1:48 Dr. Melvin Hale "Please do."
1:49 Dr. Gwen Alexander "The purpose of the march?"

1:50 Dr. Melvin Hale "Yes."
1:51 Dr. Gwen Alexander "You wanna say what the purpose of the march is?"
1:52 Dr. Melvin Hale "I brought one of these (a March on Emporia hand bill) for
everyone if they want one ... "
1:53 Dr. Gwen Alexander "Why don't I just go ahead and say that ... because I.. .I want to say
something. The purpose of the march is based on things that have
not been ascertained as fact, and I am going to ask that we don't
discuss this until after the investigation report comes out, because
this is not 'love not hate.' This is not love what you are doing."
2 :24 Dr. Melvin Hale "Why not?"
2:25 Dr. Gwen Alexander "Why not? Because ... "
2:27 Dr. Melvin Hale "We were insulted Gwen."
2:30 Dr. Andrew Smith (Interrupting) "Excuse me, excuse me, this is not appropriate."
2:31 Dr. Gwen Alexander "We're not to going to talk about it Melvin."
2:33 Dr. Melvin Hale "Well that's fine too, but I also (Gwen interrupting in the
background) brought with me some letters of support from other
faculty around the country. I think this faculty should see these
letters of support."
2:41 Dr. Gwen Alexander "I am going to tell you, it's not on the agenda, and we're not going
to discuss it today!"
2:47 Dr. Melvin Hale "That's up to you."
2:48 Dr. Gwen Alexander "It is up to me. I hope everybody will read that, and use their
critical thinking skills to realize that this is not based on fact!"
(Gwen angrily pounds the conference table with her fist)
3 :02 Dr. Melvin Hale "There are some facts that it's based on."
3:03 Dr. Gwen Alexander "There are a few, but nothing like you're purporting. So we're not
going to discuss it anymore. I'm stopping right here. No more
conversation on this."
Dr. Mirah Dow continues with the faculty meeting as if nothing happened. No other faculty said
a word.
EXHIBIT E
IAP THE BIG STORY
Emporia State couple claims racial harassment at

university
By MARGARET STAFFORD Jul. 29, 20 15 7:24 PM EDT

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) -A black couple who have been working for a small university in eastern Kansas says the school is
retaliating against them for complaining about a racial incident.
Angelica Hale, a dean's assistant at Emporia State University, said she resigned Monday out of frustration over the university's
handling of the complaint. She and her husband, MeMn Hale, an assistant professor in the university's School of Library and
Information Management, said they have endured a hostile work environment since reporting in April that someone had gone into
the office of Angelica Hale's graduate assistant and tampered with several items before leaving a racial epithet on a piece of paper.
In a telephone interview Wednesday, the Hales said Gwen Alexander, dean of the School of Library and Information Management,
initially said she would investigate the incident but then did nothing and instead chastised Melvin Hale for complaining to a university
provost and making a complaint to Emporia police. At one point, Alexander told MeMn Hale that he should "recognize that he was in
Kansas now," he said.
"We don't understand why (Alexander) wouldn't want this incident inves~igated , " Melvin Hale said. "If she is genuinely concerned
about our happiness being at Emporia State, she should definitely be on our side to figure out what happened. Her anger and
attitude make it clear that she would rather not deal with this in any way, shape or form."
The school issued a statement saying it's following all its policies and procedures for such complaints.
'The incident is under investigation," spokeswoman Gwen Larson said . "We will act accordingly when the investigation is
concluded."
Angelica Hale said Al.exander had been ple~sed with her work since the couple arrived at the school in July 2014 and had
suggested she would be in line for a full-time job after her one-year contract ended in August. Instead, Hale said she was recently
told her contract would not be renewed , so she resigned. MeMn Hale said Alexander has suggested he might not be named
director of the school's archive studies program, which he said was the reason he came to Emporia after graduating from UCLA.
The couple also says Alexander and many other employees in the school have been unfriendly and treated them coldly since their
complaint.
The Hale~ said they plan to stay in Emporia, where they bought a house six blocks from the university, and work to change what
they say are negative attitudes toward minorities at the school of about 3,900 students and few minority faculty employees.
Larson said the school has no tenured black professors and four who are on tenure tracks, out of a full-time faculty of about 253.
The Hales are planning a march Sept. 15 when representatives of the American Library Association are visiting.
'They will meet a group of people complaining about how minorities are treated at the university," Melvin Hale said. "I'm done being
nice. I'm done holding my tongue."
EXHIBIT F
TRANSCRIPT OF EMPORIA STATE UNIVERSITY PRESS CONFERENCE
September 9, 2015
Transcribed from KVOE recording found on KVOE Website, April 2016
Vietti: Angelica and Melvin Hale filed a complaint of an alleged hate crime with the Emporia State
University police department. Our on-campus police department investigated the alleged complaint
that was related to the writing of a racial slur in the notebook of a graduate student within the school of
library and information management.
Johnson: thereafter known as SLIM
Vietti: The police department on campus concluded its investigation the following day and determined
that no hate crime had been committed, but as is standard operating procedure for our on-campus
police department, it provided a report to the Lyon County Attorney. 7 days later, the Lyon County
Attorney also determined that no hate crime had been committed. In that interim period between July
2"d and July 9th, I received an email of concern from Dr. Melvin Hale and the concern was related to the
manner in which the campus police had conducted the investigation and other issues he cited within the
SLIM department.
I responded to Dr. Hale the next day and encouraged him to file a formal complaint. 2 days later, he
informed me via email that he did not intend to file a formal complaint according to university policy
and procedure which then gave me the ability according to university policy and procedure, to launch an
investigation. So I directed the launch of the investigation on July 10th and selected the assistant
director of Human resources to conduct the investigation because he had not been involved in any way
with any conversations surrounding the investigation. Because the directive came towards the end of
the week either a Thursday or a Friday, the actual investigation was not launched until the Friday
following Monday July 14th. The investigation encompassed the interview of 19 people and resulted in
350 page document of findings and conclusions and of course it also included a transcription of the
interviews that had taken place . Transcription is probably is not quite an accurate word, a summary of
the interviews.
The investigation was framed by three questions and you do have that in writing in the release . The
questions were "was a hate crime committed on or around April gth 2015? Did racial discrimination in
SLIM occur during the 2014-15 academic year? And the last question, Are there further observations or
recommendations to be made for SLIM. We would like to provide you with answers one by one to each
of those questions. I'll provide the answer, Kevin will provide the rationale. Again, well, and one other
step that I missed and it's a very important step, before we concluded the investigation we received the
draft report from the internal investigator, but a concern had been raised about the university's ability
to conduct an objective investigation. Because of that concern, we made the decision to have the
investigative process, the findings, and the conclusions reviewed by 2 external independent reviewers .
One, an attorney from Wichita in a multi-partner firm with no connections to Emporia State University.
The other, an HR consultant with a firm of her own, who also was a former board member of the Higher
Learning Commission Board of Trustees as well as the Ohio Ethics Commission. They conducted
independent reviews. We received their reports towards the end of last week. They both concluded
again independently that the internal investigation was thorough, logical and fair. Thus we accepted the
findings and conclusions within that investigation.
So the answer to the first question regarding the hate crime, was a hate crime committed on or around
April 8th? The answer is no. And Kevin will explain the answer, the rationale for the answer.
Johnson: The issue whether it was a crime, hate crime, any kind of a crime was about the writing of the
word. It was an offensive word theres no 2 ways about it and the word was written, theres no
question that there was a written word. And, and/or the circumstances under which the word was
written. Writing a word down, writing one word down on a piece of paper is not a crime. No matter
what the word is, no matter what the situation is. You can write anything you want, one word is not
going to be a crime. I mean I cant imagine what one word would be criminal. And you know, first
amendment still applies. Second, the word was written on a, the students notebook she, her at the
office she was using at SLIM was not a private office, it had an open door. People, its a place where
things were stored. People came in and out of that office all day long. It was typically not locked for
most of the day and evening for that matter. The access to the SLIM offices are possible from the library
which is a separate entities officially but you can just go through the door and youre there. So its
possible that any number of people couldve they had access to that particular office.
The student whose notebook it was says I dont know who wrote it. I dont know when it was written
exactly, I just know that yesterday it wasnt there, today its there. And so all that indicates that nobody
broke into the office. Nobody did anything criminal in order to get access to the notebook and write the
word on there. So theres no crime at all. And the county attorney concluded that theres no crime.
Also in Kansas theres no such thing as a hate crime, its not unique to Kansas thats just the way it is in
all the states and federal law, federal criminal law, but there are sentence enhancing enhancements that
can be done. If a person is in Kansas, the way it works, if a person is convicted of a felony, and its time
for their sentencing, the prosecutor has the option, at their discretion to ask for a departure sentence, a
sentence that is more severe than the maximum sentence otherwise allowed by law. And the statute
describes several reasons why that can be granted and among the reasons are if the motivation for the
crime was because the convicted felon committed the crime againsts this victim because of the victims
race, religion, national origin, all the protected classifications and a couple others that arent on the
official list, but theyre on that list that can be the basis if thats proven by a separate hearing beyond a
reasonable doubt with evidence thats what the motivation was, then that can increase the sentence
much more and thats where hate crimes from and the it changes essentially a normal felony into a hate
crime felony. So thats where that comes from. So there was just no hate crime used. And it could very
well be that cause a lot of people just have a misconception about what hate crimes are, what they
mean and just what it is. It could very well be that the thought was we this was a hate crime without
thinking it through. Theyre not lawyers, a person doesnt have to, you cant hold a person accountable
for getting the wrong word. So maybe it underlies a discriminatory intent or something like that, and
that leads into the next question.
Vietti: Id like to add something before we move to the next question. Regardless of the universitys
conclusion that no hate crime occurred, the act was still reprehensible whether it was directed at an
individual or group within Emporia State University Hornet Nation. We take with all due seriousness the
offensiveness of that kind of behavior and when we talk to you about our follow-up actions well
address our efforts to create a better, stronger, more inclusive Hornet Nation.
Q: When you were mentioning the basically that no hate crimes can happen in Kansas, is that because
its the way its se-up legally or is that..
Johnson: Yes
Q: Thats not because we ignore things that would be considered hate crimes..
Johnson: No, its a in all the states and in federal criminal law there has to be a statute that describes
what act is the crime. If the act, theres a lot of acts that are not good things, but theyre not described
as a crime. Theyre dealt with in other ways. The problem with creating something to be a hate crime is,
it just gets really complicated to write such a statute.
Q: so then my follow-up question...but if the crime of the AME church massacre that happened, but if it
had happened here, that would not be a hate crime?
Johnson: Well if someone commits a murder, its unlikely theyre gonna try to have it classified as a hate
crime for sentencing purposes because theres no more serious sentence than life or perhaps death so it
would just be pointless.
Q: What if it was an assaultthey would be charged with an assault, but when the sentencing came,
could be modified if its determined that its not the charge specifically, its the sentencing
Johnson: right and its not done very often anyway, because its hard to prove someone thats their
specific motivation. But sometimes it can be proven its usually an assault or a battery of some sort
where the persons beat-up or attacked and they live, but because its this motivation the law says that
transforms it into a hate crime there can be a stiffer sentence.
Q: My question is, what was it ever found in the investigation that this word on a notebook actually
came from the Hales?
Vietti: No
Johnson: No. Theres no evidence to show that.
Vietti: Kevin, describe the location of the offices of the graduate student and the Hales.
Johnson: Ill just use my hand on the table if you can translate that whatever you translate it into.
Everything was on I believe the 3rd floor of SLIM. The students office was at one end of a hallway, I
think there was a T-section, she was right near the T-Section, I believe. Anyway, it was a separate office
that she was using but it wasnt dedicated to her use. It was storage. And at the time there was a lot of
furniture and things being moved and store, people were in and out all the time. *LETS DO A
FLOORPLAN TO BLAST THIS. ALSO IT WAS NOT ON THE 3RD FLOOR AT A T-SECTION!]
Johnson: she found it on her notebook while she was in that office, although she said it could have been
written where she was, where she might have been somewhere else. So the assumptions been, I
found it here, maybe it was written nearby persons (inaudible)..
She wanted to report it to Dean Alexander, which would be the thing to do, so she goes out of her
office, goes down the hall to the Deans office and shes not there. Shes out of the office for some
reason. So she goes back to the hall, so her office is here, she comes to the hall a little bit down the hall
a ways away from her office, is a separate office, and thats where Mrs. Hales office was. She was the
assistant to the dean. So to the student, thought it would make sense if the deans not here, I want to
report it, Ill report it to the assistant to the dean, which, makes sense. (NO, IF THAT WERE TRUE, WHICH
IT IS NOT, IT MAKES SENSE FOR HER TO GO TO THE SLIM OFFICE AND SEE DEB RITTGERS WHO IS THE
MAIN ASSISTANT TO THE DEAN AND OFFICE MANAGER WHO IS CLOSER TO DEAN ALEXANDERS OFFICE.
In reality, Brenda and Angelica are both on the 4th floor, and Brenda reports to Angelica.)
Johnson: So she did. She showed it to Mrs. Hale, um and said, words to the effect that I was going to
report this to the dean, but shes not here so Im telling you about it so it could be passed on or
something of that nature, I dont know the exact words. And so Angelica said ok and she took a
picture of it, of the word on the page with her camera, her phone, on her phone. And so the student I
think at that point went back to her office. Um I dont know if she took her notebook at that point or
not. But then Mrs. Hale showed it to her husband who was in another office and said this is what the
student just showed me, and they were both offended because its an offensive word. [WE HAVE
PROOF THAT MELVIN WAS IN A MEETING WITH GWEN. THIS IS A FLAGRANT LIE!]
And from there, it just based on things that they have put out through open letters and other
expressions, written expressions, a person could get the impression that the word was, it happened in
Mrs. Hales office, or it happened somewhere else. But it happened in that students office. And she
brought it, if she hadnt, if Dean Alexander had been t. here that day, theres a good chance that neither
Mr. and Mrs. Hale would ever have seen it. So, its kind of a fluke that they saw it to begin with.
Q: so in that case
Johnson: For that reason we dont have any, we cant reasonably conclude that it was written with the
intent to offend them.
Q: sure. Then in that case(inaudible)
Johnson: No. Its just so many people that had access to that location and the student couldnt pin
down exactly where the notebook wouldve been and the everybody who was interviewed as a witness
was asked did you write this? Do you know who wrote this? Do you have any information about it
at all nobody had a clue so there just, short of interviewing the entire university and perhaps half of
Emporia.
Q (ESU Bulletin): what about the accusations that Angelica Hale made in her open letter that stated that
she went to a national handwriting expert to...(inaudible) thats how she got the proof of it.
Johnson: shes (then got interrupted)
Vietti: We have not seen any evidence brought forward regarding that.
Johnson: theyve never offered to share it a report
Vietti: And... the only evidence of the written word that exists at this point in time is a picture on a cell
phone. That, may...in from my perspective, that makes it virtually impossible to identify who wouldve
written that word. So one could speculate who wrote it but there is no evidence that we are aware of to
conclude definitively that a particular person wrote it.
Johnson: the handwriting analysis is a very involved thing. Its...its
Q: it looks very complicated(inaudible)..so Im assuming that the paper it was wrote on (inaudible)
Johnson: Yeah
Vietti: The graduate student innocently threw it away at the end of the semester as she has articulated
the habit of doing.
Johnson: And at that time, no one instructed the student to keep it, dont throw it away or anything
else, it so it just
Q: So how did the student react to it, was she (inaudible)...was she equally upset (inaudible)?
Vietti: Anyone directly involved with this issue had that, had the opportunity to file a formal complaint.
The graduate student chose not to, the Hales chose not to.
Johnson: The student wasnt happy about it. I couldnt say, I dont think either one of us could say
Vietti: no
Johnson: the degree of unhappiness compared to someone else
Vietti: the degree of unhappiness did not elevate to her taking the step to file a formal complaint.
Q: this happened back in April. Why was it not reported until July? Or was it reported (inaudible)
Vietti: I did not become aware of it until July 2nd...or uh, early July.
Johnson: yeah
Vietti: I received the email
Q: Oh from the open letter
Vietti: yes, well no, when I received the email from Dr. Hale regarding the ..on..campus police
investigation. There may have been informal follow-up prior to that time.
Q: inaudible
Vietti: I think we would be remiss even venture into the realm of speculation
Johnson: Now, the, um, well ..we.. only the Hales could answer why they didnt report to the police if
that was their intent was until July first. Perhaps they didnt thinkmaybe...they just...I dont know. For
whatever reason they waited until July first, its not a bad thing. Theres no requirement that it has to be
done right away. They chose that time and Im sure that they had a reason that made sense.
Jackie: But youre question does address one of our follow up activities and that is to review our policies
and procedures to ensure that they are shaped so that we conduct timely investigations and our people
are aware of the processes in place to file complaints, formal or informal.
Q: inaudible
Vietti: did we cover point number 2? I did not think that we covered point number 2 (laughing).
Johnson: You have somewhere to go?
Vietti: questions number 2 was whether there was racial discrimination that occurred within SLIM
during the 2014-15 year. The answer to that question is no. And again Kevin will explain why.
Johnson: First place, no formal complaint of discrimination has been made to our affirmative action
office. Um, the investigation thatthere would have been an investigation had that been done. And it
was because of Dr. Viettis starting an investigation that it happened. But, during the investigation,
everyonewell not everyone, most of the people that work in SLIM were talked to and Dr. Hale were
spoken to, I think, on several occasions. They were interviewed...and they did express several instances
that they alleged were discriminatory acts and that taken all together it creates a hostile work
environment. So the investigator said, fine, lets check all this out. So they went through and looked at
each one, talked to the people involved, looked at the circumstances and came up with conclusions for
every single one of them that was a legitimate, non-discriminatory basis for why that thing happened.
And theres a number of them, and having read the investigation reports and so on, it wasnt even a
close call. It was very clear that there was not a discriminatory intent.
We have given a copy to the Hales attorney of the investigation summary that addresses, identifies
each one of those instances, each one of those occurrences as well as the conclusion so that he can look
through it at leisure, talk to his clients and respond or ask for more questions, whatever they may have,
so they have all that. And so but then it leads to something thats real important to keep in mind.
Theres the legal threshold for things and our conclusion and the universitys position is the legal
threshold hasnt been met to show unlawful discrimination so its not that type of a legal issue.
However, there were things that were learned that there were events and behaviors some practice that
could be better. Theres just some things that will probably have to be changed. So you can have a
complaint and the result might be well theres no legal action thats going to come out of this but theres
still things that we need to address.
Vietti: And thats a good segue into the 3rd question that you were anxious to get to moments ago. Are
there further observations and recommendations to be made for SLIM. And as Kevin referenced through
the investigative process we did discover some issues related to the work environment and the
university is committed to working with all faculty and staff within SLIM to address whatever issues are
not contributing to the positive work environment. Beyond that, the university and this bleeds over into
another follow-up step. The university is committed to building a better, stronger, more inclusive
environment for all within Hornet Nation and to that aim we are in the process of assembling a work
group or task force.
Were not sure what to call it yet to help us thoughtfully build a plan of action to that aim. We have
identified an external facilitator with a nationally recognized reputation for his work in building
community addressing diversity in the most positive manner possible, he will be on campus soon, in
early October to work with the work group that is assembled.
Q: so when you say you saw issues, what issues were there?
Vietti: I think the issue for more open communication, an environment in which all voices are heard.
Some of their processes and procedures can be improved. Processes drive outcomes. So theres an
opportunity to look at the processescontinuous improvement perspective. So those are 2 good
examples.
Q: so there were no instances of discrimination (inaudible)
Vietti: According to the investigation, and the findings, and the conclusion, there was no racial
discrimination that took place during the 14-15 year.
Johnson: So, no is the answer to your question
Q: Maybe not just race, maybe other types of identities that are...some would consider minorities ,
sexual orientation, gender
Vietti: To the best of our knowledge, the short answer to that is no.
Johnson: No, and also work environment is a specific legal term. So I want to see if other people...Im a
lawyer so I cant help when I see things that way.
So there was not a hostile work environment, but there was at times, an unpleasant work environment
and it doesnt rise to the level of any type of unlawful discrimination on any basis. Its just and it wasnt
every single day. It was oh my gosh, beaten up every day. It wasnt like that. Its just that at times
things could have been handled better. And part of the, with the work group that Dr. Vietti referenced
part of their charge, I guess is to spend some more time talking to people about these issues so that
theres a clear understanding of what are the problems. You know, we found some things but the
investigation wasnt focused on these areas, so we werent really looking for that but we found those
anyway.
So now lets look at those more closely. And so this work group will be doing that to try to understand as
clearly as possible what really needs to be done. And then lets do it.
Q: can you tell us if dean alexander is still employed with SLIM. Is she on administrative leave or..?
Vietti: she still is employed with SLIM. You understand the confidentiality requirement for personnel
issues. That as appropriate we defined expectations for some within SLIM.
Q: (inaudible)
Vietti: Yes. Well let me be accurate. Dr Hale is still employed. His wifes position was a temporary
position and the time span of that position has expired.
Q: Do you know the date happened? Was it shortly before..
Q: I want to say that it is when the open letter that she withdrew her
Johnson: She resigned on July 27th I believe and so she, I believe at the time there was about 2 weeks
approximately left on that time span of that job. So she could have continued working for the rest of
that term, but she resigned and youre right I think it was right after the that or that same week that she
sent the open letter.
Q: I feel like it was like a chain effectshe went...she wrote the open letter...she resigned...went to the
__ about the issues [couldnt hear all of the statement+
Vietti: Well you know we cannot speak to that chain of events. We only know what from our
perspective what took place.
Q: what is your hope going forward for faculty staff students. Whats the learning opportunity?
Vietti: I see a wonderful opportunity at hand to come together and have conversations that matter
relative to building more inclusive community within the hornet nation. For all, for faculty, for staff, and
for students. And when we think about diversity sometimes we define it very narrowly based on race
but my hope is that we apply the broadest definition possible to that word so that it includes not only
race but ethnicity diversity of thought, sexual orientation. So that we learn how to value our differences
and beyond we celebrate our differences. And we have the best possible environment in which anyone
and everyone feels welcomed and included and who believes his or her voice is can always be heard.
Q: what was thesomething that was brought up in the open letter that it was that there are no
tenured black professors here and theres only 4 that are tenure track. What are you guyswhat is the
course of action to
Vietti: you know
Johnson: theres a point Id like to make first. And then Dr. Vietti will
Vietti: youve just interrupted your president...every voice must be heard
(Laughter)
Johnson: a moment ago Dr. Vietti said that sometimes diversity is looked at as a narrow thing. Diversity
among the ranks of faculty, its not just black faculty, we have faculty of from middle east, from india,
from asia, from all around. We actually have, I dont know what the statistics or the numbers are but we
have a faculty that is diverse and then when you say, now diverse then you have to say compared to
what?
And if you compare to the population of Emporia and Lyon County, its not um, we are what we are in
this county and its not a wildly diverse county. Its not good or bad, its just the way it is. But so to say
that theres, true there are 4 black professors on tenure track, then you cant just jump to the conclusion
that then theres absolutely no diversity. You have to look at all the other types of diversity that exist.
Q: Isnt that just people who define themselves as black? That doesnt necessarily include multi-racial,
that doesnt necessarily include people that are from African countries.
Johnson: Thats true
Vietti: Id like to steer the conversation a little differently. Because I expect if you were to ask a black
faculty member or a black staff they would tell you that sometimes its lonely here and we have had
some very good conversations with representatives from the black faculty and staff group and the latino
faculty staff group who have expressed a strong desire to be part of the solution in addressing whatever
issues there are. And I think the university and various constituencies will be best served if we take a
systemic approach to this and rather than look at quick fixes, we together identify the issues some of
which we know and some of which we dont. And then we work with that brain trust that has been
assembled to identify short and long-term sustainable solutions to address. Whatever the issues, what
those people around the table tell us matter to them
Q: I feel like I should clarify, I didnt mean to say that because we only have 4 tenured black.., I wasnt
trying to ignore the other professors or staff..
Vietti: I didnt think you were, but my point is this, if youre, if you are black and you dont see very
many people like you, even though we can say, yes, but we have broader diversity, if you include all the
ethnicities and all the races, it still matters to them that there are few of them. So I thought your
question was a good one.
Q: I .(inaudible)..didnt seem so shallow (regarding her question)
Vietti: No it did not at all because it was, we have heard, the group I referred to, the black faculty and
staff group expressed that very concern. We have to be willing to listen to the concern that are
expressed. And then we have to thoughtfully and collaboratively figure out together how to address the
concerns.
Q: do you feel like this is a discussion occurring nationally on college campuses everywhere...need for
increasing diversity and integrating..
Vietti: I would be very surprised if it were not. And from my perspective, I think its more challenging to
take on that issue in the broadest sense possible and address it. When youre smaller and your
geographic location is not already rich with diversity. Not to say it cant be done, it can, where theres a
will theres a way. But if youre located in an urban setting, in a megalopolis it will be easier to achieve
the diversity that people value.
Q: So after theso now that the investigation is complete, now that everythings done, basically, and
again, I dont mean to sound as if ___, but I will ask it this way because I dont know of a better way to
ask it, did the Hales tell the whole truth?
Vietti: I want to think about how to answer that question. And while Im thinking about it, we do not
consider this done.
The conclusion of the investigation is that starting point. For the commitment of the university to build
a plan, to create a better, stronger more inclusive Hornet Nation, facts are in the eyes of the beholder,
perception is oftentimes 9/10ths of reality. We know what our facts are and we have based our
conclusions on the facts we have in hand. Kevin, what would you add to that?
Johnson: (laughter in audience)Well theres an old thing that lawyers sometimes do. Perception is
key, I dont think we can say that the Hales are withholding information or whatever. Theyre doing
whatever theyre doing and they may have a different perception about things than others and
perception is like you look at this and its a big piece of white paper and so it has all this stuff and, if its
all you see, then youre going to describe it a certain way, and youre going to draw the conclusion
based upon what you see. Someone else is going to see this (paper ruffling), the exact same thing, but
theyre going to see it from a different perspective and describe it in such a way that its 2 different
things completely. Somebody must be telling a lie or somebody must be wrong. So often times
perspective, which we all have different perspectives on different issues or sometimes it leads to the
same result were describing, were looking at the same thing, just different ways so our descriptions
just dont seem to match up at all so I think thats perhaps a answer. Thats the best answer to your
question cause were not going to say bad things about anybody.
Q: (discussions about their questions)
Q: So as far as perception goes, (inaudible).. the listeners mind, will we ever know what went on based
on the difference of perceptions?
Q: What about the investigative report with the summary of interviews does that apply to open
records?
Johnson: Its a personnel document. It was done in response to an inv ( he was about to say
investigation), Dr. Viettis decision to investigate this personnel issue in SLIM so the entire document is a
personnel issue and the part that we share with the Hales attorney is the part that dealt directly with
them.
Vietti: Backing up to your question will we at some point in time develop a common frame of
reference, a shared perspective? I do not know the answer to that question, but my hope is we can
come to an agreement to move forward from here.
Q: Are there going to be any negative legal actions taken against either SLIM, the school or the Hales?
Vietti: from the universitys perspective?
Q: Im thinking do you think the Hales are going to take action against you guys and, like slander or
something like that?
Vietti: that is a question to ask the Hales
Johnson: Well know if it happens then well know if it doesnt happen then well know it hasnt
happened
Q: will 350 pages be released with the investigation results as well?
Vietti: no for the reason Kevin described earlier. Those are personnel records and we cant release
personnel records
Q: will the names of the consultants be made available?
10
Vietti: I would not think so, in fact it would be helpful for us to share their bios with you. We would be
happy to do thatI know we have the bio of the HR consultant and I believe you have the bio of the
attorney. We can email those to you
Johnson: we asked for those just for this reason in case somebody asked who they were
Q: (gazette?) Wed love to follow the task force or the focus group as they move through that process.
That would be a good thing too! Follow.
Johnson: that could be wonderful
Q: (gazette?) So folks know that the story doesnt end here, that this is the beginning and theres an
ongoing discussion
Vietti: we actually have a date for our first meeting. And we have a facilitator selected. And so we will be
convening the work group task force on the afternoon of October 7th. (Melvin called to rsvp and they
cancelled the meeting with the facilitator). And we can also share the bio of the facilitator who will be
helping us lay the foundation for the plan. I have worked with him.
Q (gazette?) He was at Coca Cola!
Vietti: Uh, huh! Yes!
Q: (esu bulletin?) Do you think there will be negative reactions from people on campus cause doing the
March on Emporia? Is that still on?
Vietti: to the best of our knowledge it is still on for next Tuesday
Q: (esu bulletin?) how does the university feel about it? Because its essentially from what the Facebook
pages and all those things say its basically them outing racism on campus and theyre even bringing in
the heads of blacklivesmatter to join the hunt, NOT THE HUNT, oh my God, that was
(laughter from everyone)
Q: (esu bulletin?) Join the MARCH!
Vietti: that was a Freudian slip (laughing)
Q: (esu bulletin?) No, I did notIm so sorry!
Johnson: (laughing) YOU said it, WE didnt say that!
Vietti: you know, its an issue of academic freedom, and why would we everacademic
Johnson: first amendment
Vietti: its an issue of freedom of speech. First amendment and in fact we share with the Hales via their
attorney the steps tosecure a permit to have this gathering on campus and the only thing that we are
concerned about is that the event doesnt get out of order. That..
Johnson: Or that others come in to cause to interfere with the participants
Vietti: so we want it to be the best experience it can be for all involved we do not want it to be
disruptive, to the classes that are taking place on campus. The other activities, and, yes. There was
another question in there. Somewhere and I lost it and, I know what it was
The question was how do you think others within the campus community will react to this and you know
some will embrace the findings, some will be satisfied that the investigation was indeed thorough,
11
logical and fair. Others will not be and we will work with that all to the aim of building a more inclusive
community, so we have to respect different perspectives. They are what they are.
Johnson: Its part of diversity. Its just different opinions.
Vietti: but we are going to capitalize not on whether people in mass embrace the results or not, were
going to capitalize on the opportunity at hand to move the university forward in a great manner.
Q (bulletin): Do you have any closing statements?
Johnson: I dont
Vietti: I dont. I mean I would direct you to my quote within the written release. Because I really think
that says it.
Gazette: thank you for taking the time to visit with us
Vietti: absolutely
###
EXHIBIT G
THE BULLETIN
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBE R 10, 201S VOLUME 11 S - NUMBER 4
THE STUD ENTS' VOICE SINC E 1901
Prank reveals Investigation reveals no evidence of hate crime

malfunction in E MM A ANNE D EPRI EST Melvin Hale filed a complaint
of an alleged hate crime with
Memorial Union STAFF WRITE R
the Emporia State University
Police Department," Vietti
On Sept. 9, Jackie Vietti,
fire alarm system interim president, and Kevin
Johnson, Emporia State general
said. "Our on-campus police
department investigated the
counsel, sat down with media alleged complaint that was
SA RAH SPOON
associates from The Emporia related to the writing of a ra-
STAFF WR ITER cial slur in the notebook of a
Gazette, KVOE and The Bulle-
tin to discuss the conclusions of graduate student within the
An unknown person or School of Library and Informa-
persons pulled the fire alarm the internal investigation that
has been taking place since July tion Management. The police
on the second floor of the department concluded its in-
Memorial Union, near the 10 to determine whether or not
a racially motivated hate crime vestigation the following day
Ballroom, on Sept. 4th, ac- and determined that no hate
cording to Jason Bosch, the occurred in April of 2015.
The press release from ESU crime had been committed.
director of Memorial Union But as is standard operating Kevin Johnson, Emporia State legal counsel, explains the location of offices from
and Student Involvement. stated, "No hate crime or racial one lo another in the School of Library Information and Management on WC<ines-
The alarms sounded but discrimination found in inves- day al the press conference held in the Presidenfs Conference Room. Johnson
then, a malfunction in the tigation." pointed oul that the note left on a desk went through many means of travel before
"On July 1, Angelica and see HALES page 6 the issue was brought to light AMANDA GOERING I THE BuUTIN
ystem occurred.
"Per fire code, when the
might be considered a liability. per donations to.
Rowley did research on the "After the whole meeting
HALES company and had never heard
of KCSL discriminating against
with PRIDE, I was told that
PRIDE not only got support
continued frompage 1
the LGBTQ+- corrununity. from us (SAFE) and the Soci-
procedure for our on-cam- tin's policy. They could not began, the Hales took to "According to the intern, ology Oub, but also from the
pus police department, it be reached at this time for social media, creating the upon mentioning PRIDE, her AKD club (the honors dub for
provided a report to the comment. March on Emporia, where supervisor grimaced," Rowley the sociology majors), the Otris-
Lyon County attorney. Vietti and her adminis- they and members of the said. '1 almost think it's a per- tian Athletes, the Black Student
Seven days later, the Lyon tration conducted a sepa- community will march sonal problem, but she (Bev) is a Union and two others," said
County attorney also de- rate internal investigation, against racism, possibly representative of that organiza- ick Thomsen, senior psychol-
termined no hate crime had contacting the Assistant Di- with the help of Black Lives tion" ogy co-president of SAFE.
been committed." rector of Human Resourc- Matter. In response to the After hearing the ne"'-s When he first heard of the
The investigation has es, Ray Lauber. They then results of the investigations, about the email, PRIDE mem- email, Thomsensaidhewasup-
been taking place since An- contacted two other inde- the administrators of the bers "were all pretty bummed," set but e,xcited that there is more
gelica Hale, former assis- pendent consultants to go March on Emporia Face- said Sean Oaridge, senior bio- support for PRIDE and that
tant to the Dean of SLIM, over the findings, an attor- book page had this to say, chernistiy and molecular biol- news of the diaper fundraiser
and Melvin Hale, assistant ney and a human relations "ESU is indeed practicing ogy major and co-president of is being spread across campus
professor in SLIM, made consultant, formerly of the institutional racism, using PRIDE. "Some of us teared up and might have a bigger turn-
accusations against SLIM Higher Learning Commis- a self-serving "internal in- and aied. There was a lot of out now that other dubs are get-
Dean Gwen Alexander, stat- sion Board of Trustees, both vestigation" to sweep racial outrage too." ting involved with the fundrais-
ing that she had looked the of which have no ties to discrimination under the SAFE, PRIDE, and the Soci- er than with only SAFE, PRIDE
other way when the alleged ESU. rug. SHAME ON YOU!!!" ology Oub are now looking for and theSociologydub.
hate crime was brought to "In Kansas, there's no Those investigating in-
her attention. She then sup- such thing as a hate crime, terviewed 19 witnesses, ac- Corky Bobble Head
posedly harassed the couple it's not unique to Kansas, cording to the university's
and terminated Angelica's it's just the way it is in all p ress release, and gathered BOGO 50% off
contract with the depart- the states in federal crimi- over 350 pages worth of
ment. During the time be- nal law,'' said Johnson. "But documentation. These notes
tween July 1 and July 9, there are sentence enhance- will not be available for re-
Vietti was contacted by Mel- ments that can be done. A view by the public due to
vin Hale about the investi-
gation taking place. Vietti
lot of people have a lot of
misconceptions about what
privacy laws.
"Regardless of the Uni- $20.00
the et
encouraged him to report hate crimes are." versity's conclusion that
his complaint formally, but Johnson is correct, hav- no hate crime occurred, the Trull luslneu Center
he declined taking that step. ing stated that in Kansas if act was still reprehensible,''
When The Bullet.in origi- someone is up for sentenc- said Vietti. "Whether it was 711C~I
nally wrote an article about ing due to a federal crime, directed at an individual or
this, the Hales were ap- the prosecutor can ask for a a group within the Emporia
proached about speaking departure sentence, which State University Hornet a-
about their feelings and is more severe than the tion we take with all due se- FfOfll s....i.m to 41--
,11.1,.. ewry-.pl chnMnt
t c~
the actions taking place,
but they declined to com-
ment until such their lawyer
maximum sentence the law
allows for that crime. Hate
crimes based on protected
riousness, the offensiveness
of that kind of behavior...
we'll address our efforts
"'"' the way.
could look over the ques- classifications falls under to create a better, stronger,
tions and pre-print article, this. more inclusive Hornet a-
which is against The Bulle- After the investigation tion."
EXHIBIT H
Brenda's office was unlocked

when she arrived to work
today and her notebook had
the word "NIGGAZ" scrawled
on it. There were some
things tampered with but the
unlocked door and the )
writing on her notebook are
the main things. (Photo
attached)
MMS 2:57 PM
Not good!!!
f) ~ nter message
Not good!!!
3:01 PM
Any ideas?
3:01 PM
No
3:02 PM
She always locks the door

3:02 PM
What did Brenda say?

3:02 PM
Upset too much to write.

3:03 PM
Does Gwen know?

3:03 PM
Does Gwen know?

3:03 PM
When you're out of the

meeting see me
3:05 PM
K
3:05 PM
Is gwen there?
3:20 PM
3:22 PM
)
Yea
3:26 PM
Di creetly I t her know that

h n ed t alk t o r
whnhh hn .
h
f) Enter messag
Is gwen there?
3:20 PM
3:22 PM
Yea
3:26 PM
Discreetly let her know that

she needs to talk to Brenda
when she has a chance. Let
her know what happened.
3:27 PM
In Gwens ofc. Come down.

3:54 PM
Ok
3:54 PM
EXHIBIT I
https://plus.google.com/+AllieFlanary
Allie Flanary
Public
Sep 21, 2015
Not today, asshats.
Dear Members of the Emporia Connection Alumni Chapter,
Greetings from Emporia State University. I hope this communication finds you well, and I hope
to see many of you at your upcoming reunion in Emporia. As members of Emporia State
Universitys Black Alumni Chapter, I wanted to provide you with an update regarding the
Universitys investigation of an alleged hate crime last spring and racial discrimination within
SLIM. This investigation began on July 10, 2015 has now been concluded.
Last week, I met personally with individuals and groups most closely touched by the allegations
of a hate crime and racial discrimination in our School of Library and Information
Management. I felt like each and every one of these people deserved to hear the outcome
personally after the completion of the internal investigation.
At this time, I can share with you the outcome as well and ask for your collaboration as we move
forward.
On July 10, 2015, I directed that an internal investigation be conducted by ESU Human
Resources into an alleged hate crime and a concern over potential discrimination or harassment
in the School of Library and Information Management. This investigation was conducted as
outlined in the University Policy Manual [3D.0106.05(A)(2)].
An extra step was added to the process to address any concern regarding the objectivity of the
internal investigation. That step included a review by two external, independent consultants. The
review encompassed an analysis of the process used to conduct the investigation and an
assessment of the evidence upon which the findings and conclusions are based.
Both independent reviewers, an attorney in a Kansas-based multi-partner firm and a human

resources management consultant who is a former member of the Higher Learning Commission
Board of Trustees and the Ohio Ethics Commission, concurred that Emporia States internal
investigation processes and findings were logical, thorough and fair.
1
Although the investigation materials and the independent reviewers reports are confidential
personnel documents, I am sharing the following information to answer the three key questions
that were the focus of the investigation.
Question 1: Was a hate crime committed in the School of Library and Information Management
on or about April 8, 2015?
Answer:
The internal investigation concluded and both independent reviewers concurred that no hate
crime was committed. A police report was made July 1 to ESU Police and Safety claiming that a
hate crime was committed. The alleged hate crime consisted of the writing of a racially
derogatory word in a graduate student's notebook and the circumstances around which the word
was written.
This report was investigated and the investigation report passed on to the Lyon County Attorney,
which is the standard procedure. The Lyon County Attorney concluded that no crime had been
committed as writing an offensive word is not a crime. In addition, none of the circumstances
surrounding the writing of this word are criminal:
The word was written on a page within a students notebook

The notebook was in a non-private office to which many people have access throughout the day
No one has admitted to writing the word
The page on which the word was written was discarded by the student at the end of the semester
No evidence has been offered or discovered proving who wrote the word, and
No crime was committed in order to write the word in the notebook.
Since writing the word in question is not a crime, regardless of how offensive, and since the
circumstances that existed surrounding the writing of this word are not criminal, no crime was
committed. Without a crime having been committed there isnothing to which the designation
hate crime can be attached. Thus, there has been no hate crime.
Specifically, thereis a general misconception about the definition of a hate crime. Kansas law
does not contain any crime known or referred to as a hate crime. It is true, however, that upon
conviction of a felony, the sentence imposed can be increased beyond the maximum penalty
allowed by law if evidence is presented proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the motivation
for the crime was race, color, religion, ethnicity, national origin or sexual orientation of the
victim.
Kansas law on this issue is consistent with the Clery Act and the Uniform Crime Reporting
definitions, which define a hate crime as a felony or other serious crime where the victim was
2
intentionally selected because of the perpetrators bias of race, gender, perceived gender identity,
religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity/national origin, or disability.
Question 2: Has racial discrimination occurred in the School of Library and Information
Management during the 2014-2015 Academic Year?
Answer:
Each allegation was investigated and the investigation found no evidence of racial discrimination
in any instance. The internal investigation included personal interviews of 19 witnesses and
resulted in approximately 350 pages of notes, documentation and other information. Specific
allegations that had been claimed to be instances of racial discrimination were evaluated, as was
the overall working environment within the School of Library and Information Management
(SLIM). Both independent reviewers concluded that the internal investigation and its findings
were thorough and appropriate.
The university has concluded that although a hostile environment based on unlawful
discrimination does not exist in SLIM, certain aspects of the working environment in SLIM need
to be addressed.
Question 3: Are there further observations or recommendations to be made for SLIM?
Answer:
Through the investigative process, issues related to the work environment for all SLIM faculty
and staff have been identified. We have identified opportunities in SLIM including, but not
limited to:
The need for better and more effective collaboration,

The need for a more open environment in which differing views are valued and appreciated,
Better adherence to university protocols and processes,
The need to review particular SLIM systems and processes, and
Specific performance issues within SLIM.
It remains my conviction that the University conducted a logical, thorough and fair investigation,
as corroborated by two independent reviewers. Does racial discrimination and/or marginalization
occur on our campus? Some believe it does; others do not. But in this particular instance we
found no substantive evidence that it occurred in SLIM during the 2014-15 academic year. That
said we are committed to working with others in Hornet Nation to identify the issues related to
3
both and to develop a plan to address them in a systemic, sustainable way.
While the University concluded no hate crime occurred, I want to make it clear that Emporia
State is not hiding behind the legal definition of a hate crime. The University has stated publicly
that the written racial slur discovered by a SLIM graduate student in her notebook is
reprehensible. Again, the University is committed to working with others to determine the best
means to preclude this kind of action from ever happening again on our campus.
Provost Cordle and I have met with Black Faculty and Staff and Latino Faculty and Staff
representatives, who embrace the opportunity to work together to advance the common good of
all associated with Emporia State University as well as the broader community. I will be calling
on others to elevate the conversation of inclusivity on campus and to work together to develop an
action plan to build a more inclusive campus community. I welcome your thoughts about how
we can accomplish this goal.
While there still may be differing perspectives regarding this issue, it is now time for us to move
forward, coming together to focus on our shared interest of building a better, stronger, more
inclusive Hornet Nation, all to the aim of changing lives for the common good.
This University has stood the test of time admirably for 150+ years. As your current leader with
an earned reputation for acting always with integrity and transparency, I again ask that we move
forward from here to lay the foundation for the next 150, working together to build a better,
stronger, more inclusive Hornet Nation in which no one is marginalized, no one is disrespected
or subjected to any kind of slur, and no ones voice is unheard. It is by listening intently to all
voices, participating in hard, absolutely honest conversations, and committing to be part of the
solution that we will we be able to do so.
Thank you for engaging with me in my hard, absolutely honest conversation and for hearing my
voice. I look forward to seeing many of you at the Sunday brunch during your upcoming
reunion here at Emporia State University.
Yours for ESU,
Jackie Vietti
Interim President
4
EXHIBIT J
Cl g ~ ~ ~ l~l ~ ~ .. ~ 65%; 11 :26 AM
www.emporiagazette.com/ 0 iiil
THEEMPORIA,GAZITTE ==
n
L:J
Jeb
Sep 10, 2015 8:59pm
esustudent: I've been following
your one-sided comments on this forum -
you are obviously not a student but one
of the interested parties. The verdict is in
and the majority of Hornet nation
believes that a fair inquiry has been
conducted and instead of coming to the
table for a reasonable discussion, in the
best tradition of the coward, you are
hiding behind spurious unfounded
allegations.
Welcome to the discussion.

EXHIBIT K
Statement by Emporia State University President Allison Garrett on KVOE Radio

From a News Clip Provided by KVOE (8658 Garrett_diversity2.mp3)
2016 - undated
Our goal is to be a model for diversity, equity and inclusion. We have a detailed strategic plan,
and the different departments throughout the university are working with their departments on
specific diversity, equity and inclusion related events, programming and teaching.
EXHIBIT L
Dear Members of the Hornet Nation,

Over the last several months.. many of you have helped us draft. and refine
Emporia State's Diversuy Equll)', and Induslon Plan. More than 50 students,
faculty) staff and community members served on the University Dtverstty and
Tnduston AIlla nee and Us subcommlUees. Many of}'ou attended ne f lhe
llslening sessions held to gather feedback on the draO plan. Still others of you
talkt.'Cl wilh members of lhc University Diversity and lnclu ion Alliance or
submitted wrtucn comments regardtng lhe draft. Thank you! Thls plan has
been enhanced by your Input
As I staled during General Assembly dlverstty. equity and lncluston arc crucial
and wlll be added as a new goal to ESU s Strategic Plan. I.Ike the process for
gathering Input on the Slrateglc Plan. lhe proces for gathering Input n the
Diversity. E<}uily, and lnclu on Piao wa comprchcn ve and provided many
opportunities for discus ion and fet'tlback. As revised. lhc goals in llinporia
State's Strateg c Plan now read:
) : Pursue di llncllve lnltlalives In curricula and program lhat will fo lN
vibrant communltics.
GOAL 2: Enrich the student cxpcrlencc wJth opportunlllcs for leadership
development and practice.
~..........""": Enhance the compclilivc role of Kansa by achieving the Slate goals
for public higher c<lucalion.
GOA I. 4: Create a culture of adaptive change as the foundation for innovation
and growth.
L : Become a model for dlverslly. equity, and lnduslon.
rvERSITY EQUITY, AND INOLUS!O PLAN

\Vhlle the Dlver:>itY Equity, and ucluston plan has been in pr ~ U ha

c ntinu d it ~ rward mom ntum. We have ace mpli hcd 't' ral key initiativ
The c lnclud :
Appointing a Till IX i1w sligator
CrcatiL1g and filling the Assistant Dean of Sludcnts for Diversity. Equity and
Inclusion position
Increasing diversity lnitiathes within the curricular and co-curricular
exp ricncc :
Creating thematic I arning ommunitic in r idcnc hall :
Enhancing marketing materials; and
igning the N AA diversity pledge.
ext ste s:
In the coming weeks and year we will tnO\Te forward together to make E. U a
model of dlverslly, eqully and lnclu ton. he Uruvcrslly Dlv r Uy and ncluslon
Alliance will become a permanent part o the university's go\crnance structure.
More information will he shared about the UDIA in the near future. The UDIA
Vi Ill help us continue the focus on progress w th respect to diversity, equity
and inclusion .
Your department should review the D vcrslty Equity> and Inclusion Plan and, as
y u mak plan r the c ming year, In lude g al that m ve y ur department
forward, a well.
Andy up r onally hould make an cffi rt to all nd the many w ndecful vent
we hwc on campus that relalc to diversil)' and inclusion. Thls will nol only
broaden and d cp n )'Our own under landing, it will <.lemon tratc l Qthcr the
broad commllm(.'llt ES ls makln to diversity equity and Inclusion.
,opies of th complete Div rsily, Equity, and Jnclusi n Plan will be placed in
key ar a around campus. You n also view the plan at www.em orla.edu
P. 'de tld c rr.-a d- c us
Tllank you for all you do for Hornet at Ion! We value all of you as we scr1ve
together to achieve our goal to be a model for diver ity. equity, and lnclu ion.
Go Horn ts!
AUi n D. Garrect
Pre idcnt
f ebruary 9, 2017
PO IA ST T
I \ ERSITY 2
hmporla. tate University I committed to creating and malnta nlng a diverse

and In lu Ive envJr nment that 1 ~'Upp rllve f, and c mmltted t , the ucce
of all members of the p0pulation that it $Crvcs, a population that rcflcc the
broa<l diversity of the human experience. Thi dive il)' in lud bul i nol
llmllcd to differences In culture and subculture, soclo-cconomlc class, race,
ethnicity, nationality. language, dlsablllty/ablllty, g oder and gender tdentlly,
se ual orieu.taUon reli ion, pollllc I. and social ideologtes famUy ba k round
and tructur , vet ran tatu , and age.
A meml>~rs of the E porla State Unfverslty community; we reallz that
creating and maintaining such an cnvir nmcnt will not hap1 en by chan c but
mu l be lh re u.lt of 1nsl1lul1onal and lndh,ldual rcsolvc, Lntcnuonal de lston-
making, and the design and execution o a campus-wide plan to become a model
of <liverslly, qully, and indu.~lon. Th Emporia Slate University Di't' ily,
quity; a.nd Inclusion Plan is included here.
Con I. lent with It Afflrmall n of Yalu s Statement, F.SU's plan must value
di,.,.e ity and personal well-being while protecting and promoting freedom
of thought, freedom f Inquiry, and freedom f exprc ion. Member of th
ES community further recognize that fully implementing this plan will
tak time and effort and musl involv ongoing progress lo achiev of
measurable outcomes.
3 D INCL
Emporia tate Un verslty I embarking on this foundational quest at a time o

gr at clal and p lltl al dlvJslveness - at a lime whens lelal dlvlsl 11 and
animosity have jacrcas<.."<l to lcvc..~ls tbat u dcrminc civil di cour c and dimini h
our abilily lo work acros fa lions. protect and valu all mcmb r of society, and
share dtversc dcas and perspectives ln an atmosphere of good w Land mutual
re peel. lven this current reality, th is Plan Is of even greater Importance to
th campu and the broader mmunily as we accempc to model l>ehavio that
1> mote community engagement , ial ohc i n. and th c mm n g
Element. of roup anca ouism lncludJo prejudice tereotypes and
di crimination dirc-cted toward individual based on their group mcmb r hip
contradict ESU core values and must be confronted ln both 1ndlvlduals and
in institutional practices. While : U provides a welcoming, safe, and diverse
mmunily, there will alw y be need for refle ti n and Improvement. It I.
hoped that this plan will provide a blueprint for doing Ju. t that_
Tl1e F.mporl State Un lve r tty Diverslly, Equity, nd In Ju ton Pl n Is the
re ult of the effort! of the Uni rersity Divcrs1ty and Inclusion Alliance as well
a ~ miln}' member f the unive Hy and Emporia c mmunili wh ar fully
reviewed earlier drafis oflhe plan and provided much appreciated comments
and sugg stions for improv ment. This plan demon trates EStrs commitm nt
to diversity, equ ity, and Inclusion In both curr icular and co-curr icular activities
in policy and in practice, and in the ways membe o the university conduct
lb m elve: . t provides a way for the ES communUy Lo realize our deepe t
aspirations or vbal we truly value and what we wanl lo bccom namely a
veh i 1 for the su e s of all our students and mployees.
MPO I STAT
U I \ ERSITY
Historical Perspective
'incc creating the University Ohersity and Inclusion Alliance (UOIA) in
a ademi )' ar 2015-16, and drafting a Dive ity, Equil)', and Inclusion Plan
Jn April 2016, Emporia State University has worked dlllgcntly to address
dl\erslty, equity, and lnclu l n n campus. ut th wQrk undertaken by
the original steering 'ommiltcc, a more permanent college-\ ide insliluUonal
group was developed. T he l)IA i a group harg<..'<I with examining divc~ily
lncluslon. and equity Lssucs on campus wllh respect to pollcy and practice from
multiple perspectives ( ncludlng access. recruitment and retentton, com mun ty
connecH n and utreach l dhe e on tlluents, and campu llmate and
culture). U JJ\ \ r s together with the President binct lca<lcr hip and
Emp<>ria Stale University conslilucnl lo engag th ampu ommunily in
product vc dialogue about c.ampus climate ssucs and to make recommendations
toward action.
UDIA collaborat~s w th InsUtutlonal Re.search to lead and carry out Empor a
tate s am pus IJmate urvey, wh lch focu n gauging coll ctlve hange in
experienc and p rceptlon, of Empori tate's campu. Jlroate a reportoo by
faculty, staff, and ludcnt . Furthermore, UDIA i ch. rged, in c.: llaboration
wllh lhc Cablncl, wllh dcvclopln and lmplcmcntlng lhc ln llluUons Dtvcrslly,
Equity, and Inclusion Plan. DIA reviews current c . orts aimed at enhancing
div rsity in represenlalion and pra li and onsi<lers which diversity goals and
approaches might scrvc effect ve In furthering the university's diversity and
ln lu I n \' l I n, and dhrer lty tatement.
D INOL
The g als and obJ~Hv~ f the D versity Equtcri and lnclu loo Plan are
de ign d t h Ip m ve the unive , ity from it current tate with regard t
dlvcrslly. cqully and 1ncluslon. pra lice. and rcprcscntallon toward the futur
state to which we aspire. l mportant lo the accountability o each strategic goal is
lh institution' role in providing th human an<l financial apa ily to effi cliv ly
carry out said objectives.
Tl1e g als, bJecliv~, and . trategie ntainecJ in thl. cJo ument were informed
by the f~dback from the Emporia tatc community. shared governing bodies, a
lit rature r vi w, and th U lA ub mm llle which ar P Ji Review. Data
Analysis. Structure and Best Practices. These lnlllalivcs have been reviewed by
lh Univ rsity Diversity and lndusion Allianc co-cllairs, senior administrative
liaisons Institutional Res ar hand Assessment, and the steerin committee.
Policy Review Committee
Reviews current university policie,c; within the conte. t of what should be
changed and what. If anyth ing, i mi sing. Prepare recommendation for
con lderallon by the full Alliance.
ata na ss , ,-ttee
Review xJsting data and develop conclu Ion re rdlng lbe current
environment. laking into considcralion lhc demographics o survey completer.
Pr par s re ornmendali ns for on id lion b)' the full Allian e.
Reviews the urrenl organi1..at1 nal . tru tu re, Including offi es committees, and
personnel within the context of What hould be changed and what if anything. ls
mi in Pr par r omm ndallons for on id ra tion by the fu ll Alliance.
B au of il importan thi Plan i a omponcnt of th univcr uys n w

Strategic Plan. ~pcdfically, it ls the means to achieve Goal 5 of the Strategic
Plan unecome a mod I for diversity, qui ly and inclusion.
MPOR ST. T
U I \ E R SITY 6
Continuing Progra1ns and ew Infrastructure

Jn addttlon to the new tnlllallvc.s oulltncd tn thls plan the many programs and
offices established over the year will continue to prov de foundational support
and Infrastructure for lhl work. r m those d Jgne<l t pr m te diversity,
C<. uit) and incluSi<m t th c tbat OU er pee nal re.source and a si lance to
community members. the ongoing programs will pla)' a vital role in achi ving
our goals of d vcrslty cquJty and Inclusion .
.Metric and Reporting

.Because we arc committed to holding ourselves accountable for achieving
progress und r this plan, w will track - over time - metrics that r pr nl
lmporcant factors In assessln pro ress toward our oals. We will use these
metrics In combination to determ ine whether spec c shifts up or down,
or lack f. ctlvlly. repr ent p slllve utcomes relatlv t reallng a mor
dive c c<}uitablc, and indu>ivc ampu . t regular interval , we will update
th community n our progr "' . Thi tra king and reporting will o ur at the
un vcrslty as well as the school, college~ and unit levels. Major progress w II be
evaluated at the end o . each academic year.
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Empo ria Stat University supports an inclu iv learning 1w ironment wher
diversity and Individual differences are understood respected appreciated
and rccogni1.ed as a ource of strength. We expect that students, faculty,
adminlslralors, and staff wlthln Emporia State will respect dlfferen es and
demonstrate diligence in understanding how other pooplc's perspectives
b haviors and worldview may be different. from their own. Dim n ion of
diversity can include sex, race, age, national orlg1n, ethn c ty, gender denUty
and expre l n, lntelle tual and physical ablllty, sexua l orientation, Income,
ailh and on-faith perspectlv , ocloeconomic eta s, poHUcal ideology,
educ ti n, primary Ian uagc. family tatu , military experience, cognilivc tylc)
and communtcatlon style. The 1nd1vldual 1ntcrsecllon of these cxpcrlcnc.cs and
characteristics will be valued in our community.
Emporia State Untvcrstty's Afflrmallon of Values (Untvcrstty Polley Manual,
Page 2) Includes the following statement:
ESU has a commltmetrt to recogntze the value of diversity and the respect for
individual tdeas, opinions, and experiences.
Students., faculty. stafj; and administrators provide opportunities wttlitn amt

oc,tside the cla sroom that foster contact with and respect for diverse groups
of peopl tmd increu d appreciation for plurult tic ideas und ~perlence.s. lVe
value and welcome lhe benefits of diversity. Therefore we expect and demand
llwt Ill worth and dignity of all p ople be recogniud rfilwul regard to any
c/asslflcatlo11 that mtg11t preclude a person from constderatt011 as a11 tndlvlduaL.
7
1 Improve university access and student persistence to increase the diversity o the
Emporia State University community.
Identify and enhance students diversity-related educational opportunities and

2 experiences to ensure that all students graduate with core cultural competencies,
skills, and habits of mind necessary for living and working effectively as members of a
diverse global community.
3. evelop and nurture learning communitie that promote d iversity, equity, and
inclusion in the curriculum and co -curriculum.
Ensur Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Plan ac ow1tabilily by ass ssing goal
a compli hment and strategy effectiveness. The assessment proces is to include plan
adaptations and implementation of improvement strategies with the intention of
sustaining the plan.
Develop and maintain a campus climate and cuJture in which embracing diversity,
5 equity, and inclusion is a core value lived by all members of the Emporia State
community.
MPOR ST T
UN I \ ERSITY s
9 D INOL ~
GOAL 1 OBJECTIVE A
mp rove the diver ity of the tudent body.
Strategy 1
Develop targeted outreach plans to build pipeline hr aden the applicant pool.
and admit. an lncrea et numb r 1 quallfled studen fr mgr ups f bat have
b en under-represented in higbc.ir cducati n.
(a) i.:ocus adm ss ons strateglc.s to rccru t students from h1storlcally undcr-
r present d group~.
(b) 0 vclop and employ tralegics t enhance the knowlc lgc, skills and focus
of the cxlsttn Ambassadors program on dlvcrslly equity and Incluslon.
(c) Alloca te financial aid re ources to support the re rullmcnt and retention of
students rom historically under-represented groups.
(d) uild pipeline projcc s that will 1 vcragc c ting summer academic
program lo population of pot ntial sludl'nls.
a) Markel th proj l l jump tar t the tudent educali n u ing
summer courses.
b) Develop scholarsblp fundlng t upporl thl effort.
( ) Create an Admissions Diversity Recruiter Poslllon ,that Is responsible
for attending events at h ighly diverse high schools across the state a nd
regl n for the purp se f recruiting under-repre enred gr up t Emporia
late nivcr ity.
Identify assess and enhance cxlsUn programs aimed at rclcnllon support and
succes for students from groups that have been historically under-represented
In hJgher education.
MPORIA ST T
U I \ E R S I T Y 10
GOAL 1 OBJECTIVE B
Improve the diver ity of faculty and staff within the can1pu
community.
Strate 1
ConUnue ongoing effort to improve the recruitment and hiring f faculty and
laff from under-r present d groups.
(a) lmplcm nt lh "Li l of 5" tralcgy wh re ach facully ar ommiltc
member s asked lo 1) sollclt nomlnat ons for potential diverse candidates
from a minimum of five professional In the academic dis lpline. 2)
contact th nominees a1'd per"ouaJly in ite them to apply for the poslllon
and 3) document the c conta t .
(b) Expand av,-areness of faculty and staff employment opportunities to
graduate ho I erv!ng hl b number 1student fr m uoder-repr; eoted
group .
(c) E..c:tabllsh and implement a plan for outreach to local communitic ,
rganiz.1llon , and afnnily r up lo d vel p nnccli n ti r hiring
faculty and staff from under-represented groups.
St atcgx
Evalual and impr v pra ti es lhal support the u ess and re l ntion of a
diverse faculty and staff.
GOAL 1 0 JECTIV C
nhance Alumni Relations among dome lie and international
minorilie .
St ate
Dc\elop an Alumni Diversity Program Coordinator role lo organize and buHd
on the work and struclur of ethnic-based chapl rs. Fundraising and alumni
dlverslly programming would be the key component<: of U\ls role.
11
MPORI ST T
U I\ E RSITY 2
GOAL 2 OBJECTIV A
nhancc and expand diversit}', equity, and inclusion learning
opportunitic for tudent .
Strategy 1
Cultivate a developmental approach to dive lty, equity, and inclu ion by
embedding ucb material lbr ugbout the student learnln experience.
(a) Develop d fin d ore cullur-al compclcn i
(b) Id nlify where core ulturnl mpetencie urrentl)' xi l within the
general education program curriculum.
(c) Id uUfy wbere core cultural competeocies urrently e t wttbln m J<>r a d
n1 in r program .
(d) Integrate core cultural competencie Into the genera l education. major. and
mlnor a ademlc programs of the in lltullon.
(e) Integrate dive. lly, equity and inclu I n subject matter .Jnlo Orst-year
experience courses.
(f) Expand the cxlstJng curricuJum by Identify ng potential new maj or and/or
minor programs with content dedl at t diversity. ulty. and inclusion.
(g) Provide directed opportunities for students to pursue und rgraduat
scholarsh ip and research on Issues related co diversity equity and
inclusl n.
(h) Provide a campus-wide syllabus statement af 1rming the value of diversity
equ ity, and inclusion fi r all ours .
Strategy 2
Inventory evaluate, and enhance diver. ity. quity. and in tu i n-focu. cd cud nt
lcarnln opportunlllc ou t ldc the classroom.
(a) Dev lop and nhance r lalionsh ips with 1 l ommunilies and off-
campus affinity groups to provide opportunities for students to connect
dJverslt)', equity, and In lu I nreJated ur w rk with experience In the
real world. Such opportunilies could include but would nOl be limited lo
cooperative I a ming, mcnt ring, and intern hips.
(t>) ProvJde Increased op ortunltles ~ r tudy abroad.
GOAL 2 OBJECTIV B
nhance and expand campus-wide effor at promoting diver ity,
equity> and inclusion practices.
Strategy l
Provide educational and t rain ing opportunities to faculty, taff. and students
related to the lnstilullonal value f re: peel and re pon lbUJl)' a d scribed in
the university's Affirmation o Values tatcment.
(a) Develop and dcl vcr annual dtvcrs ty training to all faculty and staff. wi th
mphasi on new hlr .
(b) Provid div rsily competency training/education to all tudenl 1 aders
on campus. This will Include hut Is not lim ited to orientation of student
leaders, resident assistants, ambassadors, and member o the A soclated
tudent G vernment. H will al o Jn lude a developmental an<l ln-deptb
approach co fraternity and sororit diver ity efforts.
S akg
ldcnttfy, assess and enhance support services and campus-wide competency for
working with persons w ith d lsabllltles.
(a) lncrea~ c in.pus aware?nc s of the needs of persons with disabilities and
th law uring their equal acce: .
(b) Provide direct opportunltl to the ampu ommunlty to enhance
disability cliquclle awarcnc s.
(c) F.valuate campus-wide accesslbillty to ensure equal access for rhose
with disabilities.
(d} I evelop a direct approach to foster collaborative efforts to support
American with DI blllll A t mpll. nee.
(e) Provi<le learning and any other supporting materials in a -ssible forma t
for people w ith dlsabllltlcs.
MPOR A ST. T
u I \ ERSITY 1
Prov de leaching and learning resource (material personnel, and venue)

supporting classroom management and p<.."Clagogics dedicated lo diversity
equil)', and in lusion.
(a) Expa nd profe I nal development opp rtunltl t a J t faculty
in addrcs Ing diver Hy, cquily. and lnclu ion including curricular
tran formation. and indu ivc pedagogy and a ignm nts.
(b) Expand profe sl nal development opportunitie to a si t faculty In
lncorporatln diver lly, equity, and lnclu lon into mcnt rin and
advising practices.
S tatc_gy, 4
Embed the detlned core cultural competencies In the co-curriculum.
Strate 5
Dev lop slrategi to xplore th xtent to which sh1denl valuations of leaching
effectiveness are influenced by bias bas don the g nder ethnicity race or
other comparable characteri ti of the faculty member being evaluated. Assist
facull)' and admtnt tralion o that lheir lnl rpretalion ofthe re ull of student
cv lualions o facult.y leaching cffcclivcncss adjusts or possible bias based on
gend r ethni Hy ra e and other omparable variabl s.
fonnt:'r Ohto Sen. Ntnu 'l'urncr, left, lntcracls wllli students af~r her presentallon lri the
Martin l.uthl?t' King Jr. lecture series Dn }anuar)' 20. 2017
16
MPOR A STAT
U I\ E RSITY s
Create curricular-related learning communme wttb dtversHy. cquUy. and

inclusion themes lhat arc designed lo stimulate the inlcll<..>clual interest of
stud -nl.s.
(a) r vlde up rt ft r the <level pment and ucce
organizalions and dubs with faculty advi..or .
(b) Provide support to faculty and staff who advise and mentor students wuh
interc ts related to dive ity, equity, and inclu ion.
St ate 2
Create co-currtcular-rclaled learning opportunities with diversity. equity, and
inclusion themes.
(a) Provide re ldence hall thematic learn ng communities and accompanying
Pfi grammiog.
(h) F.nh nc~ the Cent r fi r Stud nt Jnvoh menl programming direc ted
toward voluntccrism and community service.
1 IVEPSITY. EQ: ITV, 0 INCL

A ST. T
u ERSITY 18
GOAL 4 OBJ ECTJVE A

As e progre on univer ity d er ity goals and integrate change
strategics as appropriate.
Strategy l
En ure that the plan has an entity and individual() a signed to con Orm the
integrUy of lh plan accomplishment.
Strat 2
Track and a s . plan rogres withe tablishcd data points and tudcnt
cbaraclerl Uc succ.e metr1 , for example, tbe Nallonal urvey of tudcnl
Engagement Diverse Lea ming ;nvironmcnl survey cnrollmcnl demographics,
relenlion data, gra<le poinl average al graduation and graduation rates.
t ate 3
Jn unit and of tee annual reports inc.Jude information on diversity, equity and
In luslon topl~ a appropriate.
St ate
Develop an In ormatlon and data repos tory to catalog the lnstltutlon-wlde
effi rt ln pur ulng tbe Dlver lty, Eq uity, and In Ju l n Plan. D~ta ll tlou and
sharing strategies to include:
(a) Holding broad-based data dlscussions.
(b) Collecting, anal)"'.ting, and disseminating d1ta.
(c) Surveying facult)l sLaff. and students' perception of commitment
to diver ity.
GOAL 4 OBJECTJV
tabli h and/or strengthen univer ity tructurcs that
support diversity.
Strate l
Review and if/a needed revise organizational structure and c mmittee to
en ure em cllve Implementation of dlvcrslly, qull)', and lnclu ion oals.
(a) Review now of diver il)' work.
(b) D v lop a ystem fi r c ordinatin dive ily r grammio t minimize
schcdullng conmcts, max.imlzc coJlaboralious, and maximize campus
awa rcness of releva nee to cou s.
rcatc an Associate Afflrmattve Action Officer and Title IX Deputy

rdlnat r who conduct all formal Inv tlga tl n .
19 O INCL StO
GOAL 4 O!BJ CTIV C

evicw and as needed rcvi e or create policies and practices that
en ure diversity, equity, and inclusion co1npliance.
Strategy 1
Review and revise all policies to en ure that language and content is reflective
of the breacUh of d iver tty empha tzed In thl plan and the In lllullon'
Affrrmalion of V lucs Statement in the University Policy Manual.
t te
De\clop a reportln y tern for facully, taff, ludcnts, and ue t to record
complaints related lo harassment and discrimination .
. t te
To enhance dlvcr Hy tnlllattves, lnclud a focu on dtverslly, cqully, and
inclusion when building and strcnglhening university partnerships.
W1lh respect to meelln awmdanc cxpectallons develop policies. processes.

and criteria by wh ich students, faculty, and sta with e.stabllshed religious
observ. nee ulcl be ace mm ated In a ordance with law.
MPORIA STAT
u I \ ERSITY
D INOL
GOAL 5 OBJECTIVE A
ncrcase mporia tate employee , capacity to create and upport
an inclusive and diver e can1pus community.
Strategy I
Develop orientation sessions for new1y hired employee that prepare them
lo understand and participate in lhe universlly' dlverslly, equ lty, and
inclusion c orls.
(a) Include a scsslon on the top cat new faculty and staff orlcntatlons.
(b) Develop and deliver a coordlnalcd lnlroducllon lo the topic as an
institutional and ducalional value for first -yea r student ori ntalion.
Provide educational and tra nlng opportunities to enhance Institutional capacity

t undertake effective diversity, qully, and In lu I n w rk.
(a) Develop train ing m dulc for faculty tarf. and tudcnl lhal o vcr
lnlersccuons of cultural competencies.
(b) Prm11de dlverslly, eqully, and In luslon compel DC)'lrnlnln and educaUon
lo all oricnlalion student leaders resident assistants lour guides and
includ ad -velopmental and in-depth approa h toward Fraternity and
ororlty Life efforts.
GOAL 5 OBJ CTIVE B

Increase and improve Emporia tate niversity's diversity, equity,
and inclusion-related n1e saging.
Enhance dvcrstty. equl~ and ncluston's web and pr nt prescnc.c.

(a) Analyz web content related to diVer.. ny, e-qulty a1 .d lucJusion connect
di parate picc to b linked fr ma central divcr~ ity page.
(b) Develop and enhance dive ity brochure and other print materials.
2
Enhance materials WghlighHng support services offerc..'<i lo students/person
with di bilil ics.
Dc\ elop visual identity for diversity messaging.

1
s
Examine how Emporia Slate Univ Hy communicilc Hs value internally
and externally and develop stralcgles for hlghl ghllng lhc d vcrslty cqu1ty, and
In luslon value me sage con lslently. T his wou ld In lud tabllshing onslstenl,
clear, and ongoing me saglng related to dlverslry as a core value and identifying
media and venue for sharing that me: sage.
MPO I ST T
u I \ ERSITY
1 K 11 gg Cir le
Emporia, Kansa 66801
Appendix A
ESU DIVERSITY & INCLUSION PLAN - PROPOSAL
UDIA Member List
Name Position/Department Sub-Committee

Umair Abbasi Chief Marketing Officer Data Analysis
Roy Abbott ESU Retiree
Meghan Anderson Graduate Assistant - President's Office
Jason Brooks Assistant Dean of Students - Student Affairs Struct ure
Gonzalo Bruce Dean of International Students
David Cordle Provost/Vice President - Academic Affairs Best Practices
Emmanuel Cockrell President - Black Student Union
Marisa Crawford Gray Director - Career Development KCKCC
Amir Cuffee Admissions Counselor- KCKCC
Dale Cushinberry Distinguished Alumni
Jennifer Denton V.P. - Stewardship & Admin; Assoc. V.P. Univ. Advancement Data Analysis
Emma DePriest Student - PRIDE
David Edds Professor - Biological Sciences
Kathy Ermler Dean - Graduate School
Sonja Ezell Assistant Professor - The Teachers College Best Practices
Allison Garrett President
Shelly Gehrke Assistant V.P. for Academic Success - SAC Best Practices
Kayla Gilmore Student Black Student Union Best Practices
Werner Golling Vice President - Administration and Finance Policy Review
Art Gutierrez Assistant Professor - Library and Archives Structure
George Head Technology Support Specialist- IT Structure
Lynn Hobson Dean of Students St.ruc-ure
Andrew Houchins Professor- Music Data Analysis
Froilan Huachaca Student - HALO Struc-ure
Yasmin Ibrahim Student-ASG Diversity and Inclusion Chair Struc-ure
Jane Lackey Administrative Assistant - Registration Policy Review
Sheryl Lidzy Associate Professor - Communication and Theatre Struc-ure
Jenny Ma Assistant Professor - SLIM
Megan Mahoney Assistant Professor - University Library & Archives Data Analysis
Gene Mcintosh Alumni Board, ESU Retiree
Sarah McKeman Executive Assistant - President's Office
Mary Mitsui Assistant Professor - Nursing Policy Review
Lisa Moritz Executive Coordinator - General Counsel & President's Office Data Analysis
Damara Paris Assistant Professor - Counselor Education
Roxana Peraza Admissions Counselor Struc-ure
Gregory Robinson Assistant Professor - English, Modern Languages & Journalism Policy Review
Rochelle Rowley Assistant Professor - Sociology, Anthropology, C&D Studies Best Practices
Margie Sheppard Student - SLIM
Shane Shivley Vice President- Univ. Advancement; Foundation President
Douglass Smith Instructor - Informatics Data Analysis
Christopher Stone Instructor - School of Business Best Practices
Brent Thomas Dean - College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Struc-ure
Michael Torres Admissions Counselor Struc-ure
Sandy Valenti Assistant Professor - SLIM Best Practices
Elijah Williams Student- URGE/ASG Structure
Jim Williams Vice President- Student Affairs Structure
Kent Weiser Executive Director - Intercollegiate Athletics Best Practices
Deryl Wynn Chief Compliance Officer - KCKCC
Gary Wyatt Associate Provost and Director - Honors College Policy Review
George Yancey Professor - Psychology
Susan Zuber - Chall Lecturer - Sociology, Anthropology, C&D Studies Best Practices
EXHIBIT M
From: Melvin Hale <reefresh@yahoo.com>

Date: Jul 25 at 8:23 PM
To: Ron Thomas
Mr. Thomas,
I would like to obtain a copy of the recording of the Emporia State News Conference held on
September 9, 2015. At one time it was posted on your website in conjunction with the following
story.
http://kvoe.com/newsedit/10322-esu-no-racial-discrimination-or-hate-crime-in-slim-department
If there is a fee for the recording, let me know what that would be. All rights and attribution
remain with KVOE. My wife and I have lawsuits against ESU in federal court, as you know, and
the recording is an important piece of evidence. I have attached the latest orders from the Court
which came down on July 14, 2017. I have underlined what I believe are important issues in
those orders. We are now in the discovery phase of the litigation.
Regards,
Dr. Melvin Hale
**********
NOTE: There was no response to this email. After a subpoena was issued for the recording,
KVOE stated that the recording had been lost. The news regarding the order of the Court was
never published.
EXHIBIT N
Re: News Story on Hale v. ESU
From: "Smith, Sherman" <******@cjonline.com>

Date: Sep 25 at 11:50 AM
To: Melvin Hale <reefresh@yahoo.com>
Mr. Hale,
I apologize for the delay in getting back to you, and for taking longer than expected with this
story. Tim and I plan to meet this week for a status update, and I hope to be able to publish in the
next month or so. Thank you for efforts in helping us tell this story.
Sincerely,
Sherman
-------- Original message --------

From: Melvin Hale <reefresh@yahoo.com>
Date: 9/22/17 4:35 PM (GMT-06:00)
To: "Smith, Sherman" <******@cjonline.com>
Subject: News Story on Hale v. ESU
Hi Sherman,
I have been looking to find anything about our lawsuit and the rulings regarding ESU on
CJOnline, but I can't find anything. Have you printed the story? If not, what is the status and why
hasn't it been published? I would just like to know what's happening. It would appear that this is
a big news story, and that it's being suppressed. It is that problematic for you? This is something
that the public has a right to know. ESU and eight administrators are facing serious charges, and
those administrators have been stripped of immunity. We went to a lot of trouble to get to your
offices because you wanted to discuss this matter in person.
Regards,
Dr. Hale
EXHIBIT O
I I KOCH_NEWSROOM Q
( All Leadership Bios
Dave Robertson
President and Chief Operating Officer
David (Dave) Robertson is president and chief

operating officer of Koch Industries, Inc . and a
member of its board of directors. He previously
served as executive vice president of Koch
Industries.
Mr. Robertson is chairman of Georgia-Pacific Equity

Holdings. LLC, Flint Hills Resources, LLC and
Molex Electronic Technologies Holdings, LLC, and
he serves on the boards of INVISTA B.V. and Koch
Chemical Technology Group, LLC, all of which are
subsidiaries of Koch Industries.
Mr. Robertson began his ca reer with Koch companies in 1984 and has led several Koch
companies. He is the past president of Flint Hills Resources, Koch Petroleum Group, Koch Beef
Company and Koch Agriculture Company.
Mr. Robertson earned a bachelor's degree in business administration and marketing from
Emporia State University, in Emporia, Kan. He and his wife, Kathy, live in Wichita and have three
children.
Based in Wichita, Kan., Koch Industries, Inc. is one of the largest private companies in America
with estimated annual revenues as high as $100 billion. according to Forbes. It owns a diverse
group of companies involved in refining, chemicals, and biofuels; forest and consumer products;
fertilizers; polymers and fibers; process and pollution control equipment and technologies;
electronics; information systems; commodity trading; minerals; energy; glass; ranching; and
investments. Since 2003. Koch companies have invested more than $80 billion in acquisitions
and other capital expenditures. With a presence in about 60 countries, Koch companies employ
more than 120.000 people worldwide. with about 70.000 of those in the United States. From
January 2009 to present, Koch compan ies have earned more than 1,200 awards for safety,
environmental excellence. community stewardship, innovation. and customer service. Familiar
Koch companies' brands include STAlNMASTER carpet, LYCRA. fiber, Quilted Northern tissue
and the Dixie brand of cups. plates and cutlery.
~ Mcdio Resources I Lcodcrship Bios I Dave Robertson
It KOCH.
VISIT TO KOCH INDUSTRIES
The Business Student Alliance sponsored a trip to Koch Industries on

Monday, April 27th. Activities for the day included lunch with Emporia
State Alumni employed at the company, an MBM simulation, and a recent
graduate panel discussion. The trip was open to any business student.
Graduate student Jacob Williams attended the trip to Wichita.
"It was a great opportunity to see the inside of a company that employs so
many Emporia State Alumni, said Williams. "I enjoyed participating in
the team-building exercise because I was able to meet and interact with
students from the School of Business
Story from Spotlight, the ESU Alumni Magazine

29
VISIT TO KOCH INDUSTRIES
The Business Student Alliance sponsored a trip to Koch Industries on

Monday, April 27th. Activities for the day included lunch with Emporia
State Alumni employed at the company, an MBM simulation, and a recent
graduate panel discussion. The trip was open to any busines student.
Graduate student Jacob Williams attended the trip to Wichita
"It was a great opportunity to see the inside of a company that employs so
many Emporia State Alumni;' said VVilliams." I eajoyed participating in
the team-building exercise because I was able to meet and interact with
students from the School ofBusiness ."
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS Dr. Marian Riedy, Assistant

Professor of Business Law, was
STUDENT ATTENDS STATE OF Bessmer's faculty supervisor for the
THE UNION internship. Dr. Reidy practiced law
in Washington, D.C. for many years
before joining the ESU faculty
An Emporia State student got the experience of a lifetime when his
in the chool of Business. '1t's a
internship landed him a seat at the State of the Union address. Junior
wonderful opportunity for John
management major. John Bessmer. was able to witness President
to obser\re the political scene at
Oba.ma give his speech on January20, 2015 atthe Chamber of the
such dose range. and he has great
House of Representatives .
networking opportunities \vith
fel low interns and House staffers:
Bessmer spent the pring 2015 semester in Vvashington, D.C. for his
internship with Congressman Tim Huelskamp. Bessmer heard about
The School of Business is excited
the internship through Buzz-In and applied His duties included taking
to see students capitalize on such
phone calls from constituents, sitting in on hearings for legislative
wonderful internship experiences
staff and other miscell aneous activities for the Congressman . "I am
and network with individuals in a
extremely grateful that Congressman Huelskamp invited me to attend
variety of backgrounds and industries. 'Tm pleased to have a young
the tate of the Union Address with him;' said John Bessmer. '1t was a
Kansan represent the "Big First" at the State of the Union. I have been
fantastic exi>erience to be able to sit in a room with some of the most
impressed \vith John's work ethic during his time \vith my office," said
powerful people in the nation and to be able to listen to the President
Huelskamp.
speak in person :
EXHIBIT P
Robert Page of the Legacy Group speaking with

Dr. Hale and the media on November 19, 2015
Page had just evicted the media from a supposed open meeting to which
they had been invited on diversity and inclusion, prompting an outcry
from the media, and a national firestorm over a blatant First Amendment
violation at ESU.
EXHIBIT Q
Metropolitan
Community College 000 Request Information ~ Apply to MCC
**I'
Newsroom home Robert Page named MCC's executive director

In the news of inclusion and engagement
Christina Medina December 2. 2015
Preparing students
Serving communities 100 Years, 100 St ories
Metropolitan Community College has named Robert N. Page Jr. the new
Creating opportunities Executive Director of Inclusion and Engagement. This w ill be a senior
leadership role developed to guide and support the College in ensuring that
Events inclusion, equity and diversity, which are fundamental to the College's
mission, are fully incorporated and embraced into all aspects of MC C's
Robert N. Page Jr. operations.
Search Blog
The position was created last spring and leading cand idates were interviewed beginning last
summer.
Search
II "I am personally committed to safeguarding equitable and fair treatment toward others on our
campuses; Chancellor Mark James said. "This position will report directly to me to ensure that the
support and resources necessary are in place to increase ou r efforts guaranteeing that everyone at
Recent Posts MCC feels welcomed and valued."
Page has been with MCC since 2010 working as a consu ltant lead ing diversity and inclusion
MCC expert offers tips on how to keep programs.
your personal info safe October 3,
2017 He has worked in postsecondary education for more than 24 years and specia lizes in retention and
recruitment programs for students of color, diversity t raining and awareness, conference
Board of Trustees approves
coord ination, and budgeting and strategic planning. He has conducted countless workshops,
2017-2021 MCC Strategic Plan
seminars and keynotes on many issues with a focus on inclusion and leadership potential.
October 2, 2017
Burns & McDonnell Design Innovation Page is certified and trained through the National Multicultural Institute and the Institute on Racial
Lab to be unveiled at Oct. 5 ceremony Justice. He is the founder of such programs as the National Black Greek Leadership Conference, the
October 2, 2017 "Am I My Bro t her's Keeper" Male Empowerment Conference, Minority & Friends Network at the
Oshkosh Placement Exchange, African American Male Summit at NASPA, and the Tunnel of
Chancellor Kimberly Beatty offers Oppression Diversity Activity.
nuggets and lessons to The Gathering
September 29, 2017 Prior to his time at MCC, he served the University of Kansas as the director of the Office of
Mu lticultura l Affairs. He holds a master of science in counsel ing degree from University of Central
Board of Trustees meets first-ever
Missouri.
president of MCC-Blue River SGA
September 29, 2017 "I am honored and looking forward to continuing the work that so many people have begun here at
This MCC/AT&T technology event was MCC;' Page said . "Our goa l as an institution is to encourage, support and foster an inclusive
all about the girls September 28, 2017 environment that promotes equity for all of our faculty, staff and, most importantly, our students. It
will be my goa l to bui ld a better MCC through focused efforts on inclusion for all:'
MCC will hit the road with new Gold
Collar Jobs tra iler Sept ember 22, He begins his new role effective immediately.
2017
EXHIBIT R
Civil rights activist Fred Gray receives honorary degree

from Emporia State
0 LAST UPDATED ON SEPTEMBER 16TH, 2016 Q i\'IEmail
SEPTEMBER 1STH, 2016
Related: Photo Gallery
Fred D. Gray, Sr. received an honorary degree from ESU. Photo by Kyle Smith/KVOE News
The festivities of Allison Garrett's inauguration as Emporia State's 17th president kicked off with honoring a
civil rights lawyer.
Garrett and David Cordle, who's the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, gave Fred Gray an
honorary degree.
Gray then spoke to the crowd about the social inequality issues he dealt with as a child growing up in
Montgomery, Alabama. He grew up during the Jim Crow laws of the southern states, and he to decided to
fight those segregation issues once he completed law school at Case Western Reserve University.
His first civil rights case was the representation of Claudette Colvin, who refused to give up her seat on a
city bus in Montgomery. He represented many other influential civil rights activists during the turblent
1960's, which include but aren't limited to Rosa Parks, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and E.D. Nixon.
Garrett invited Gray to talk to the Emporia community about his life as a lawyer and how fighting for social
justice is always important for the betterment of American lifestyles.
He in tum learned about Garrett's work because they're both lawyers.
{wbty_audio audio_id="17943" audio_title="Gray on how he met Allison Garrett"}
Among Gray's numerous accomplishments, he became one of the first African-Americans to serve in the
Alabama Legislature since the Reconstruction era. Even though President Garrett spent 16 years as an
attorney, she's still in awe of the work Gray did over the years as a civil rights lawyer and activist.
{wbty_audio audio_id="17944" audio_tille="Garrett on Gray's legacy"}
Garrett will officially be inaugurated as Emporia State's 17th president on Friday afternoon. The ceremony
begins at 2 PM at Albert Taylor Hall.
We have a photo gallery with this story at KVOE.com.

EXHIBIT S
EMPORIA STATE
UNIVERSITY
August 11th, 2015
To the Senior Administration of Emporia State University:
The Black Faculty and Staff (BFS) and the Latino Faculty and Staff (LFS) of Emporia State University
(ESU) would like to formally declare its support of former Assistant to the Dean of Library and
Information Management (SLIM), Angelica Hale and Assistant Professor, Dr. Melvin Hale. Based on our
understanding of the recent occurrence and intentional mishandling of a racially motivated hate-crime
against Dr. and Mrs. Hale on Emporia State campus, the Black & Latino Faculty and Staff find it necessary
to not only stand in solidarity with our colleagues, but to implore the administration of this university to
give sincere attention and due diligence to the proper investigation of this issue.
We would expect that as valued employees of the institution, that ESU would be timely and transparent in
its handling of this incident and the culture that precipitated it. We find the Administration's response
(official or otherwise) to this matter to be representative of a potentially hostile work environment that
has done little to nothing to ensure the professional and cultural integrity of ESU.
The formal statement the university itself released should be sobering to the senses of Emporia State's
administration. The tense climate that has been created as a result of the incident further calcifies the
notion that not only is the university not progressing in the area of diversity and minority employment,
but it is actually regressing illegally regarding the issues of race. When the hate crime was brought to the
attention of Dean Alexander, she conveniently reminded Dr. Hale that "This is Kansas," as to assert the
acceptability of this type of environment and behavior. We emphatically refuse to accept the types of
actions and attitudes that support the notion that our state, city, or institution can be unapologetically
racist and exclusionary to individuals who live and work in it with pride. This matter is important to us
and we expect the administration of Emporia State University to respond appropriately.
We call on the University to take this incident as an opportunity to reaffirm and strengthen its
commitment to Diversity. As Ms. Hale acknowledges in her open letter:
"ESU has no tenured African American professors and only four tenure-track African American professors,
yet it's over 150 years old?!"
This observation is one that is woefully accurate, painting a vivid picture of the shortcomings of the
Emporia State University at seeking out, attracting, and retaining motivated and qualified black
professionals to lead our campus. There are currently four black faculty members. Out of those four
faculty, one will be exiting ESUs campus this upcoming October. Our black faculty colleague in the
college of Business is not on tenure track after three years of employment at Emporia State.
To address the underlying causes that are creating an environment that is not conducive to a positive
experience, the BFS & LFS calls on the Administration to create a transparent, strategic, campus diversity
plan that specifically addresses the following:
a. The inclusion of both an African-American Emporia State Employee and someone from the
Diversity Education Committee as part of the current university presidential committee
search.
b. Reassigning the universities Affirmative Action Officer position to someone else in the
Human Resource department. Currently, there is no one that represents under-
represented populations on the campus in the Human Resource department.
c. Other areas on campus that need attention:

1. There is no staff of color in Academic Advising
2. There is no full time staff of color in Student Wellness
3. There is no professional staff of color in Residential Life
4. There is no staff of color in the ESU Foundation
5. There is no staff of color in Career Services
d. The creation of a Senior Administration Position created (VP or Dean) geared towards the
enrichment of diverse enrollment management procedures for students & staff, affirmative
action, campus wide diversity initiatives and the reporting of discrimination and
harassment
We believe that a transparent plan would be in the best interests of the ESU community as well as it will
keep all of us responsible and accountable to the wellness and fairness that we expect from an institution
like ESU.
Our sincere hope is that Emporia State University, the Kansas Board of Regents, and the various law
enforcement agencies that obtain the jurisdiction to act on this matter will coalesce to allow justice to
prevail and set a new precedence for racialized intimidation at this institution. In the opinion of the
remaining Black & Latino Faculty and Staff, to sit passively in the face of such flagrant acts of
intimidation and disregard places us in the vulnerable position of becoming the next to be targeted with
no recourse. For these reasons, we find it necessary to share our perspective and to open up the
opportunity for the ESU administration to take a more substantive approach to reconciling this matter.
The Black & Latino Faculty and Staff are requesting a meeting with ESU Administration to discuss the
concerns and objectives raised in this letter. We would request both an acknowledgement of receipt
of this letter by Interim President Jackie Vietti within 2 days as well as a meeting scheduled with us
within 1 week. In our attempt to be leaders in this area, we have shared our support of the Hales,
shared our concerns of the state of diversity at ESU, asked for reasonable changes based on best
practices of diversity in higher education, and lastly a dialog with the administration. If our request
for an acknowledgement of concerns along with a meeting go unheeded, we reserve the right to
follow up these concerns in other forums.
Sincerely,
Representatives from Black Faculty & Staff

Representatives from Latino Faculty & Staff
Doug Smith, Ph.D. Jason C. Brooks

Instructor, Colle e of Business ~nclusion
Sonja Ezell, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor
College of Education
Amir Cuffe
Admissions Counselor
Gregory Robinson, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor
English, Modern Languages, and Journalism
Javier Gonzalez
Director of Fraternity and Sorority Life
Roxana Peraza
Admissions Counselor
George Head
Technology Support Specialist- Information
Technology
Jane Lackey
Administrative Assistant- Registration
EXHIBIT T
From: Melvin Hale [r-----@yahoo.com]

Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 10:31 AM
To: David Cordle
Subject: Racial Incident at SLIM
Dear David,
We have had a brief but positive relationship, so I regret to inform you that my/our
experience working in SLIM has decidedly taken a turn for the worse. It has been made
known to us in a most graphic and shocking manner that we are not respected, and that
we are not welcome in the Library School. I say we because it involves both me and my
wife.
After many years working in the private sector, in high levels of responsibility, I am all
too aware that grievances of this nature are to be made via the chain of command. I can
assure you that the information I want to share with you, and possibly the interim
President, was immediately made known to my supervisor, Dean Alexander, as soon as
it was known to us, but that more than 60 days have elapsed, and she has refused to
even discuss the matter with the individuals that were directly impacted. In addition, it is
becoming abundantly obvious that retaliatory measures are being directed at us.
I still have an affinity for this institution, so I would like to offer you an opportunity to
address this matter before it mushrooms into something else. What occurred was
nothing less than a hate crime, and it appears to have never been officially reported. I
have good reason to believe why this was not done. Forensic and circumstantial
evidence point to internal sources.
I will leave it at this. I value my academic career, and I am not one to complain about
imagined or insignificant events. I allow for human frailty and mistakes. This was none
of those. It involves someone intentionally not only calling us the most derogatory and
vulgar racial epitaph in the English language; they had the audacity to write it down.
I am available to meet with you, and the interim President if possible, privately, at your
earliest convenience. I am here this week through Wednesday. I am teaching in Denver
this weekend.
I am sending this message through Yahoo mail for obvious reasons.
Best regards,
Melvin
EXHIBIT U
To: Jackie Vietti, Ph.D., Interim President, Emporia State University
September 18, 2015
Dear Jackie,
I received your letter dated September 16, 2015. I cannot in good conscience sign such a letter.
Besides the fact that the letter is mean and vindictive in tone, it is rife with errors and
omissions. I will not attempt in this message to address the totality of these issues, however, I
will comment on one requirement: that I issue a retraction of [my] accusation of Debbie
Rittgers as the author of the racial slur unless [I] provide the University with credible,
substantive evidence that Ms. Rittgers is the perpetrator.
The statement itself is factually erroneous. Debbie Rittgers has been identified by Wendy
Carlson as the most likely suspect. A confirmation or clearance of Debbie Rittgers as the writer
of the racial slur would entail a formal handwriting analysis, which you have refused to require.
The sufficiency of the photographic evidence, which you have not seen, is of such a resolution
that a trained forensic handwriting expert who is qualified to examine photographs would have
no trouble whatsoever making use of it for the purpose of comparison. Ms. Rittgers has
produced such a large volume of handwriting in her job and as a notary that a broad sample of
her writing would also be sufficient for these purposes.
Kevin Johnson was provided with an accurate recording of a voicemail message left for Angelica
on June 19, 2015 in which Wendy Carlson identifies herself and refers to Debbie Rittgers as the
highly probable suspect. The fact that Debbie Rittgers name has surfaced is due directly to the
actions of Gwen Alexander. Angelica was the one who named Debbie Rittgers in her Open
Letter to the Dean after she was told she would be let go for no good reason at all. I did not
make this information public, but I do concur with Wendy Carlsons expert opinion. Why
shouldnt I?
Moving beyond that issue, I find it incomprehensible that you have spoken with Debbie Rittgers
and numerous other individuals in the course of getting information, but at no time have you
shown that courtesy to either me or to Angelica. You have never heard our voice.
I have concluded that you are operating out of prejudice in its purist form; you have prejudged
us and condemned us. You never even responded to the letter Angelica wrote to you over a
week ago. For someone who claims to be open, transparent, fair, etc., I can honestly say that
from my perspective, I do not agree. I believe that your leadership of Emporia State University
may come to be known as the darkest days in the history of this institution.
If you find my comments offensive, I would be surprised. You are purposely single-mindedly
intent on refusing to look at both sides of this issue and have a real open and honest dialog.
You go and talk with the black students, staff and faculty as if you care about their grievances,
and sit down at length with them, but Angelica and I, the ones who suffered the indignity of
being called NIGGAZ, you have pointedly avoided. Now you are making threats about
terminating my job, for no real reason except you think you can force me to surrender my
principles for a morsel of bread. Anyone who knows me would tell you that that is not going to
happen. I will not sully my reputation for an institution that demonstrates retaliation and
prejudice. The facts in this case clearly indicate that Gwen Alexander, the Dean of SLIM, was
derelict in her duties to report and investigate the hateful incident that came to light on April 8,
2015.
Last Tuesday, the March On Emporia garnered national attention. The statistics for the website
with the live-streaming video had over 1,000 visitors that day, and included over 100 colleges
and universities from coast to coast. The march itself was not the puny little demonstration
that many who oppose us had hoped it would be. Instead, it was well-attended, and visually
and informationally exceptional. ESU will have to live with those images and those messages
forever.
If you truly want to bring healing to this campus, I would suggest that you do the hard but
pragmatically constructive thing. Bring Angelica back, and restore me to my position without
further ado, and show that you are being magnanimous and fair. If you do the opposite, you
will be strengthening the impression that dissent is unwelcome and that justice is unattainable
here. It will also embolden those who are racist.
A mere show will do nothing. A few meetings will do nothing. Hiring your longtime friend Juan
Johnson, who gave you an award for diversity recently, while pocketing thousands of dollars in
contracts over the years, will do nothing. If you do not show that you care about us, the
victims, all the dog and pony shows in the world will be a waste of time. As with my students,
many of whom consider me the best instructor they have had in the SLIM program, I am just
keeping it real.
Regards,
Melvin Hale, Ph.D.

EXHIBIT V
Open Letter to Dean Gwen Alexander July 27, 2015

School of Library & Information Management (SLIM), Emporia State University
The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who dont do anything about it.
Albert Einstein
Dear Gwen,
Later on today I am turning in my iPhone, my badge, and my keys to Human Resources. After serving
SLIM as well I have, and then seeing how both I and my husband are treated badly for simply reporting a
hate crime, for being whistle-blowers, I am determined to expose corruption in this department.
The Clery Act, a federal statute enacted in 1990 and codified at 20 U.S.C. 1092(f), requires colleges
and universities that receive Federal monies to accurately report crimes that occur on or near campus.
That was not done here. What transpired at ESU was a heinous act clearly meant to intimidate and insult
both me and my husband, and all you did was look the other way. You stated that this is Kansas. What
does that mean? What we know is that someone unlawfully entered the office of the SLIM student who
reported to me, vandalized it, and wrote the word NIGGAZ on her notepad. Debra Rittgers, your
Office Manager and Assistant, is the most highly likely suspect according to a national handwriting
expert, yet you attempted to force me to interface with Deb, on Friday. How malicious. This is why I am
departing now.
Since when is unlawful entry, vandalism and a racial epitaph not a crime? I have attached the text
message describing the incident that I sent to my husband on the day it occurred, April 8, 2015. He was
in a faculty meeting with you at the time. Afterwards, you promised to investigate, but never did, and
you became enraged when confronted about your neglect. The only person who took pictures of the
crime scene was me, which is why I am the only person on Earth with forensic evidence. You didnt
record anything. To retaliate, you have terminated my contract and started to harass my husband.
My husband, Dr. Melvin Hale, worked diligently to attain his doctorate from UCLA in 2014, at the age of
sixty! He is an extraordinarily gifted man. What he accomplished was nothing short of phenomenal, so I
have no intentions of standing idly by doing nothing while you retaliate against both him and me for
simply demanding that this incident be called a CRIME. It is never appropriate to shoot the messenger.
ESU has no tenured African American professors and only two tenure-track African American professors,
yet its over 150 years old?! You yourself have a record of discarding faculty on a whim, especially
faculty of color. We are the only two African Americans in this entire department. Turnover in SLIM,
during your tenure, has been off the charts. In this time of heightened awareness of the lingering evils of
racial injustice, this type of institutional racism will not be viewed sympathetically by anyone who truly
believes in the fight for social justice and the common good. How does your conduct lie with the values
and code of ethics of the American Library Association?
This is not about a personnel matter. This is about a hate crime based on race. #blacklivesmatter
Angelica Hale
EXHIBIT W
; Dale Monobe
Wednesday, July 29, 2015 11:41 AM
Dear SLIM folks:
This is to let you know that Angelica Hale decided to discontinue working for SLIM a few
weeks earlier than the end of her contract (August 15) and resigned effective on Monday of this
week. Angelica began working for us when Melvin and she arrived last fall and we were able to
hire her on a temporary basis for the semester. After that, she agreed to continue during the
spring semester and we had the money to put her on temporary assignment again. Her
experience with social media and marketing has been a big help to us and we will miss her
contributions in that role.
f f f f p f
and we will begin a search to fill that position this fall. Going forward, we are in need of an
employee who can continue the social media and marketing work that Angelica began and also
be the person in charge of handling the administrative part of our new certificates and MS in
Informatics. I am working on that job description now and welcome your suggestions.
Andrew Smith has agreed to continue in the role of Interim Associate Dean for the fall semester
while we conduct a search for a permanent appointment for this position.
Thank you all for your contributions to the SLIM Program Presentation for our reaccreditation
review in September. The document is now at the printer and will be forwarded to the ALA
Office of Accreditation, our visiting team, and all of the members of the ALA Committee on
Accreditation the end of this week. I will forward an electronic copy to you at the same time. The
document refers to a lot of supporting evidence in SkyBox that is being populated now in
p p f . fp p
I p f the outcomes of your efforts, so am thanking you not only for gathering
materials and writing portions of the document, but also for accomplishing everything that we
reported.
Gwen
Gwen Alexander, Ph.D.

Dean and Richel Distinguished Professor
School of Library and Information Management
Emporia State University
Box 25, 1 Kellogg Circle
Emporia, KS 66801
620-341-5203
galexan1@emporia.edu
EXHIBIT X
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Melvin Hale <*******@yahoo.com>

To: "angelicahale7@yahoo.com" <********@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 12:38 PM
Subject: No talk zone
Mirah passed by and was talking for a minute, then said she remembered that Ray said don't talk
to me. Just fyi...
EXHIBIT Y
Black Student Union Meeting

September 17, 2015
6:00 PM
Greek Room: Memorial Union
Apologizing for two weeks ago

Be respectful during the meetings
Executive Reports
President - Emmanuel Cockrell
March on Emporia
Vice President - Deidra Elijah
Step Show Information
Secretary - Michelle Wilkes
Text Reminders
Women's Chair - Kayla Gilmore
Begin get togethers in October
Public Relations - Froilan Huachaca
Planning stages for continuing protests
Social Chair - Jeremiah Johnson
Sunday Dinner 9/17/15
Community Service Chair - Ceanna Trice
Reaching Out for step show
Conversation with President Vietti
Introductions
Discussions on personal view points
Racial Discrimination
Hate Crimes
Diversity
Internal Investigation conversation
Attendance
Jay Vehige
DeAsia Jones
Ivy Kennedy
Lashiya Smith
Champayne Bodie
Savannah Russell
Miquie Bowe
Angela Ross
Ceanna Trice
Jeremiah Johnson
Froilan Huachaca
Emmanuel Cockrell
Deidra Elijah
Kayla Gilmore
Marcus T. Williams
LaRhon Walker
Vanessa Kindall
Tyia Everidge
Michelle Wilkes
JaShawn Wallace
Black Student Union Meeting

September 24, 2015
6:00 PM
Greek Room: Memorial Union
Executive Reports
Emmanuel Cockrell - President
Deidra Elijah- Vice President
Big 12
Kayla Gilmore -Women's Chair
Book Club
Froilan Huachaca - Public Relations
October 7 Marketing Materials
Topics For Discussion
Have you ever disassociated yourself from people in your community?
What happens when you disassociate yourself from people from your community?
What does it mean to be classy?
DaAsia Jones
Ivy Kennedy
Champayne Bodie
Miquie Bowe
Vanessa Kindall
Savannah Russel
Mariah Love
Tyia Everidge
Froilan Huachaca
Emmanuel Cockrell
Michelle Wilkes
Kayla Gilmore
Deidra Elijah
Zauvi Laddimore
LaRhon Walker
EXHIBIT Z
POLICIES/PROCESS
3D.0106.02.02 RACIAL AND/OR ETHNIC HARASSMENT
Racial and/or ethnic harassment is a form of discrimination that is illegal under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964. No member of the university community shall engage in racial or ethnic harass-
ment Retaliation against an individual for making a complaint of racial and/or ethnic harassment will
be treated as a violation of the racial and/or ethnic harassment policy. For the purpose of this policy,
racial and/or ethnic harassment is defined as ethnic slurs and other verbal or physical conduct relat-
ing to race, ethnicity, or racial affiliation that:
1. has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work or academic envi-
ronment;
2. has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance, aca-
demic performance, living environment, if residing in University housing, or participation in any
university-sponsored activity; /
3. otherwise adversely affects an individual's academic or employment opportunities; or
4_ is not legitimately related to the subject matter of a course.
Racial and/or ethnic harassment may be blatant or subtle. Examples of the conduct that is prohibited
include, but are not limited to:
< derogatory name calling or language based on cultural stereotypes;

< incidents or behaviors which are derogatory to a racial or ethnic group; or
repeated ignoring or excluding of one's presence or existence in a University setting.
30.0106.02.03 OTHER HARASSMENT

No member of the university community shall engage in harassment on the basis of age, color, religion,
marital status, national origin, disability status, veteran status, sexual orientation, or on any other factor
that violates state or federal discrimination law. For the purposes of this policy, such aforementioned
harassment is defined as unwelcome verbal and/or physical conduct which :
1. Has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work or academic envi-
ronment;
2. Has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance,
academic performance, living environment, if residing in University housing, or participation in any
university-sponsored activity;
3. Otherwise adversely affects an individual's academic or employment opportunities; or,
4. Is not legitimately related to the subject matter of.a.course.
30.0106.03 ROLE OF THE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION OFFICER AND TITLE IX

COORDINATOR
The Affirmative Action Officer will assist in the complaint process, however, is not permitted to
be an advocate for either party and is obligated to assure fairness to both parties and to protect
the University's interests.
The Title IX Coordinator will oversee investigations when the university receives a complaint
regarding a violation of Title IX.
For inquiries regarding Affirmative Action and/or Title IX, contact the Executive Director of
Human Resources and Affirmative Action in the Office of Human Resources, phone 620-341-
5379.
30.0106.04 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ADVISORY COUNCIL
The Affirmative Action Advisory Council (hereafter referred to as the "Council") includes seven
representatives appointed annually by the President of Emporia State University. Representa-
tives, except for students, are appointed to serve 3 year terms with at least one representative
completing his/her term each year. Student representatives are appointed to serve 1 year
terms. However, a reappointment to serve consecutive terms may be considered with the ap-
proval of the Affirmative Action Officer and the President of the University.
The representatives will be appointed as follows: two faculty representatives, one professional
staff representative from Student Affairs, one professional staff representative at-large, one
representative from university support staff, and two representatives from the student body. The
Affirmative Action Officer meets with the Council and serves as an ex-officio member.
49
EXHIBIT AA
EMPORIA STATE ACAUEr!1cs I Arn11ssor.s I sruof:::.nTUf-1::: 1c uHf.(t:rn s1umJHS 1GIVl:::r1rnv 1ATHL1::: 11cs =
UNIVERSITY Custom Search
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT I Now&Fore,er AnnualReporl Pres>dentsCabrnel Plans Orgamzat>onal Charl
President's Cabinet
Provost & Vice President for Academic Affairs Vice President for Administration Interim & Finance & Chief Financial Officer
David Cordle Diana Kuhlmann
Executive Director, Alumni Relations Chief Marketing Officer Interim, Marketing & Media Relations
Tyler Curtis Gwen Larson
Internal Auditor & Legislative Liaison Executive Director Interim, Human Resources & Affirmative Action Officer
Brian Denton Ray Lauber
Chief information Officer - Information Technology & Vice President for University Advancement. Foundation
Associate Vice President - Information Technology Shane Shivley
Cory Falldine
President, University Executive Director, Intercollegiate Athletics

A llison Garrett Kent Weiser
General Counsel & Co-Director Center for Leadership & Ethics Vice President for Student Affairs
Kevin Johnson Jim Williams
Undergraduate I Graduate I .
\. 6 2 0. 341 . 5455 \. 1. 800 . 950 .c"-AD '' Preparing Students for lifelong learning rewarding
;:!'.; go2esu:g:enioona edu ;:!'.; grad1nfc:g:enioona edu careers and adaptive leadership ' '
16 e for the commongood President's Cabinet Meeting for the common good e 17
A leader who sets the bar hig h for herself and those Oklahoma Oiristian Dean of the College of Arts and
around her. Someon e with diverse experience. One Sciences David Lowry said Garrett had given him
who genuinely listens to and cares for others. autonomy to do his job.
Former co lleagues and students used those "She has a soft insistence about her when something
characteristics to describe Allison Ga rrett, wh o on needs to be done," Lowry said . ..Allison is never
Jan. 4 became Emporia State's 17th president. threate ned by different poi nts of vieo.v. ... She h as never
pulled the 'I'm the bos.s' card."
Garrett had worked nearly fo ur years as executive vice
president at Abilene Ch ristian University, five years as Tamie \A/illis. OC library director, said Garrett was
senior vice president for Academic Affairs at O kJ ahoma we ll-known for turning office meetings into "walking
Christian University and three years as associate meetings" to vieo.v something under disc ussion , often
professor of Law at Faulkner University. pausing to greet visitors she spotted along the way.
Earlier, she had spent 16 years as an attorney, including Chukwuma ''C huck" Oputa, former ACU fi>o tball
two years as a U.S. Securities and E.xchange Commissio n player and former juni or class president, appreci ated her
attorney and 10 years with Wal mart Stores. Inc. , where personabl e approach .
she rose from corporate counsel to vice president and "She wants to promote students, and s he builds
general counsel of the corporate division . relationships with people," said Oputa, who considers
She had worked closely with David Glass, then Garrett his mentor... To build the university up, she
\ Valmart p resident and CEO and now president and engages with everybody."
CEO of the Kansas City Royal~
..Her leadership skills and innovative approach made
a difference with the many broad and challenging
assignments, but Allison always functioned with
distinction and integrity in whatever areas she was
assigned," Glass said .
.. . Emporia State University will great ly

benefit and continue its excellence in
hig her educ ation under her leadership.
-David Glass
Other co lleagues touted Garrett's diplomatic approach

to se nsitive issues, her high performance standards and
her wealth of knowledge gl eaned from private sector,
government and higher education .
..All ison wants to be the very best and for everyone
around her to be the very best," said Anthony \.Yill iam.s,
ACU chief busi ness services office r.
"She hires good people and lets them do their jobs;'
ACU Director of Athletics Lee DeLeon added
"'She s upports and gives the backing they need
to be successful."
Allison Garrett At a Glance

lllmelni: Neosho, Missouri
"':;b;md: Olip Garrett, married 28 yeais
l';n l!y: Son Ethan and wife. Danielle; daughter Tori and sen Noah
Hobble=: Enjoys playing golf, although "toting the scuba gear and chainsaw
makes it quite a bit of work." she says.
EXHIBIT BB
ESU not renewing Melvin Hale's contract

0 LAST UPDATED ON FEBRUARY 6TH, 2016 Q llEmall
FEBRUARY 6TH, 2016
WRITTEN BY CHUCK SAMPLES
Emporia State School of Library and Information Management professor Melvin Hale addresses the
gathering at a March on Emporia in September. ESU has informed Hale his contract will not be renewed in
May. KVOE News file photo.
Melvin Hale's last day at Emporia State will be May 17, and his final paycheck will be issued May 20_
ESU has confirmed Provost Dr. David Cordle gave Hale a letter of non-renewal before Christmas. Hale,
who organized two marches for racial equality last fall and in the process of writing a book alleging systemic
racism on campus, is suing ESU for defamation, false light and invasion of privacy, amending the suit to
include wrongful dismissal after receiving the letter.
Because of personnel policy, Emporia State is not saying what Hale's current status - whether he has been
relieved of part or all of his faculty duties - and the university is also not commenting on whether Hale has
any restrictions on going to the department or contacting any personnel on campus.
Hale and his wife, Angelica, have been involved in a now lengthy dispute with department and university
leaders about whether racism is a deeply-rooted concern following the discovery of a racial epithet on a
notebook in the SLIM office nearly 10 months ago. Angelica Hale was a graduate assistant in the SLIM
department before resigning this past spring.
KVOE News is awaiting a reply to a soclal media message to the Hales through the March on Emporia
sites.
EXHIBIT CC
Case 5:16-cv-04182-DDC-TJJ Document 30 Filed 07/14/17 Page 1of19

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
ANGELICA HALE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
EMPORIA STATE UNIVERSITY,
GWEN ALEXANDER,
DAVID CORDLE, and
JACKIE VIETTI,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Angelica Hale brings this action pro se against defendants Emporia State
University ("ESU"), Gwen Alexander, David Cordle, and Jackie Vietti. Plaintiff alleges that her
former employer, ESU, retaliated against her by terminating her employment because she
complained about racial discrimination. She asserts a Title VII retaliation claim against ESU.
Plaintiff also alleges that defendants Alexander, Cordle, and Vietti retaliated against her after she
exercised her right to speak out against discrimination and racism. She asserts a First
Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against these three individuals.
Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss all of plaintiffs claims under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6). Doc. 17. Plaintiff has filed an Opposition to defendants' Motion. Doc. 19. And,
defendants have submitted a Reply. Doc. 15. After considering the parties' arguments, the court
grants defendants' motion in part and denies it in part. The court grants defendants' Motion to
Dismiss the official capacity claims asserted against defendants Alexander, Cordle, and Vietti.
The court denies the motion in all other respects.

I. Factual Background
The following facts are taken from plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1). The court accepts the
facts asserted in the Complaint as true and views them in the light most favorable to plaintiff.
Burnett v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 706 F.3d 1231, 1235 (10th Cir. 2013) (citing
Smith v. United States, 561F.3d1090, 1098 (10th Cir. 2009)). The court also construes
plaintiff's allegations liberally because she proceeds prose. See Hall v. Bellman, 935 F.2d 1106,
1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (holding that courts must construe prose litigant's pleadings liberally and
hold them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers).
Plaintiff is an African-American female. On July 1, 2014, ESU hired plaintiff as an
Assistant to the Dean for Marketing in the School of Library and Information Management
("SLIM") at ESU. Also on July 1, 2014, ESU hired plaintiff's spouse, Dr. Melvin Hale, as an
Assistant Professor in the SLIM.
In December 2014, Dr. Hale complained to Dr. Gwen Alexander, Dean of SLIM, about
Debra Rittgers, Office Manager and Assistant to the Dean of SLIM. Dr. Hale accused Ms.
Rittgers of racial discrimination directed at him as well as his wife (plaintiff). Dr. Alexander
refuted Dr. Hale's claim. Dr. Alexander told Dr. Hale that Ms. Rittgers had not committed any
acts of racial discrimination. Dr. Alexander also told Dr. Hale that he and his wife probably
were too sensitive, and she asked if his wife was going through menopause.
Dr. Hale told Dr. Alexander that plaintiff would not return to work at the SLIM unless
her employer satisfied certain conditions, including moving plaintiff to a private office on the
fourth floor of the building, away from Ms. Rittgers. Plaintiff believes that her move to the
fourth floor office then created "unspoken tensions in the workplace." Doc. 1 if 26. After
plaintiff's office move, Ms. Rittgers stopped communicating with plaintiff unless necessary. Ms.
2
Rittgers also failed to transfer plaintiffs phone to the upstairs office for almost six months. And,
Ms. Rittgers interfered with plaintiff's assignments to a graduate assistant by giving the graduate
assistant conflicting assignments.
On April 8, 2015, the graduate assistant arrived at work to find that someone had
unlocked her office, tampered with its contents, and wrote the word "NIGGAZ" on a notepad on
her desk. The graduate assistant reported what she found to plaintiff. Plaintiff believes that the
racial slur was directed at her and her husband, and that the graduate assistant who reported it to
her merely served as a conduit to deliver the message.
Plaintiff and Dr. Hale reported the incident to Dr. Alexander and requested that she
investigate it. Plaintiff believes that Dr. Alexander did nothing to investigate the matter. In late
June 2015, the Hales reported the incident to Dr. David Cordle, ESU's Provost, and Judy
Anderson, Director of Human Resources. The Hales also reported the incident to the ESU Police
Department and attempted to file a police report. According to plaintiff, the ESU Police
Department refused to investigate the matter. The Hales also called the Lyon County Attorney
and left a message asking that he call them to discuss a possible hate crime at ESU. The Lyon
County Attorney never returned this phone call. According to plaintiff, the Lyon County
Attorney chose not to investigate the matter and concluded that no crime had occurred after
relying on information that ESU provided.
Dr. Hale then wrote a letter to Dr. Jackie Vietti, ESU's Interim President, asking her to
investigate the April 8, 2015 incident and reporting his belief that he and his wife were victims of
retaliation. Shortly after Dr. Hale sent the letter, a Human Resources employee contacted the
Hales, explaining that he was assembling a report about the incident for Dr. Vietti. The Hales
met with the Human Resources employee separately. During their conversations, they each
3
discussed their concerns about the April 8, 2015 incident. They also reported the earlier
incidents of discrimination by Ms. Rittgers.
The Hales later learned that the Human Resources employee charged with writing the
report about the incident was a family friend of Ms. Rittgers. The Hales accused the employee
of bias and asked that he recuse himself from the investigation. The employee refused to recuse.
Dr. Vietti also refused to remove the employee from reporting the matter.
Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Alexander began to treat her and her husband differently than
others in the SLIM after they reported the April 8, 2015 incident to Provost Cordle and the ESU
Police Department. On July 7, 2015, Dr. Alexander came to the fourth floor to visit all of the
faculty members on that floor but refused to visit the Hales. Afterwards, Dr. Hale went to the
third floor to talk to Dr. Alexander. During this conversation, Dr. Alexander expressed
disappointment that the Hales had reported the April 8, 2015 incident to the Provost and the ESU
Police Department. Dr. Alexander said that the Hales' performance had been stellar leading up
to their complaints, but that she felt blindsided by their allegations that she and Ms. Rittgers had
engaged in misconduct. Dr. Alexander told Dr. Hale that she had hoped he would have
overlooked the April 8, 2015 incident because he could have served as a model for professional
behavior by an African-American. Dr. Alexander also expressed frustration that the Hales
wanted something done about the incident. She told him that he should accept the incident
because "[t]his is Kansas." Doc. 1 if 78.
Plaintiff was a contractual employee when she started working for the SLIM. According
to plaintiff, Dr. Alexander promised that she would make plaintiff a permanent employee
because she was doing an excellent job. Dr. Alexander encouraged plaintiff to complete her
Bachelor's degree so that she could earn a higher salary and have the opportunity for promotions
4
at ESU. Plaintiff enrolled in classes at ESU starting in the fall of 2015, so that she could work
toward her degree. But, after 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.
Plaintiff resigned from ESU two weeks before her contract ended. She did so because
Dr. Alexander had asked her to interact with Ms. Rittgers in what plaintiff perceived as a
demeaning and subservient manner. 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.
Instead, plaintiff asserts that Dr. Alexander terminated her contract as retaliation for plaintiff
complaining about racial discrimination. Plaintiff also alleges that Dr. Cordle and Dr. Vietti
ignored her and her husband's complaints about racial discrimination and retaliation for
reporting discrimination.
II. Motion To Dismiss Standard Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) provides that a complaint must contain "a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Although this Rule "does
not require 'detailed factual allegations,"' it demands more than "[a] pleading that offers 'labels
and conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action"' which, as the
Supreme Court explained, "will not do." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
5
"To survive a motion to dismiss [under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)], a complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face."' Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). "A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). "Under
this standard, 'the complaint must give the court reason to believe that this plaintiff has a
reasonable likelihood of mustering factual support for these claims.'" Carter v. United States,
667 F. Supp. 2d 1259, 1262 (D. Kan. 2009) (quoting Ridge at Red Hawk, L.L.C. v. Schneider,
493 F.3d 1174, 1177 (10th Cir. 2007)).
Although the court must assume that the factual allegations in the complaint are true, it is
"not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation." Id. at 1263
(quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,
supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice" to state a claim for relief. Bixler v.
Foster, 596 F.3d 751, 756 (10th Cir. 2010) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).
ID. Analysis
Defendants assert that the two claims plaintiff asserts in her Complaint fail to state a
claim sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The court
addresses plaintiffs two claims separately, below.
A. Plaintiff's Title VII Claim Against ESU
Title VII prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee "because [she]
has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter, or because
[she] has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation,
proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter." 42 U.S.C. 2000e-3(a). To state a retaliation
6
claim under Title VII, a plaintiff must allege: "(1) that [she] engaged in protected opposition to
discrimination, (2) that a reasonable employee would have found the challenged action
materially adverse, and (3) that a causal connection existed between the protected activity and
the materially adverse action." Argo v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield ofKan., Inc., 452 F.3d 1193,
1202 (10th Cir. 2006) (citations and footnote omitted).
Defendants assert that plaintiffs Complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to satisfy the
first element of a Title VII retaliation claim against ESU. That is, defendants argue that
plaintiffs Complaint never alleges that she engaged in protected opposition to discrimination.
Defendants contend that plaintiff made just one complaint of racial discrimination-when she
and her husband reported the racial slur found in her graduate assistant's office on April 8, 2015.
Relying on an unpublished Tenth Circuit decision, defendants assert that this one complaint is
insufficient to constitute protected opposition to discrimination and support a Title VII retaliation
claim. See Robinson v. Cavalry Portfolio Servs., LLC, 365 F. App'x 104, 112 (10th Cir. 2010)
("A complaint of a single racist remark by a colleague, without more, is not "opposition
protected by Title VII." (citing Jordan v. Alt. Res. Corp., 467 F.3d 378, 380 (4th Cir. 2006)).
In Robinson, the plaintiff brought a Title VII retaliation claim against her former
employer. The plaintiff alleged that the employer had fired her as retaliation for providing a
witness statement about a conversation she had with a co-worker who repeatedly used the word
"nigger" and then made a racist comment. 365 F. App'x at 108. After trial, the jury returned a
verdict for plaintiff on the retaliation claim, and the district court denied the employer's motion
for directed verdict. Id. at 110. The Tenth Circuit reversed, concluding that the plaintiff had
failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation with her one complaint about a single racist
remark. Id. at 113-14. The Circuit explained: "No reasonable person could have believed that
7
the single ... incident violated Title VII's standard. It is undisputed that the employees' reports,
including [plaintiffs] do not claim [the employer] did anything wrong." Id. at 113.
Robinson differs from the facts alleged in plaintiffs Complaint here for several reasons.
First, Robinson involved a report of just a single racial remark. But, plaintiffs Complaint in this
case alleges more than that. First, plaintiff alleges that her husband complained to Dr. Alexander
in December 2014 about Debra Rittgers and "several instances" of racially discriminatory
conduct directed at either him or his wife. Doc. 1 ir 15. Second, plaintiff alleges that she and her
husband reported the racial slur found in the graduate assistant's office to Dr. Alexander and
requested that she investigate it. Third, plaintiff alleges that she and her husband reported the
racial slur to Dr. Cordle, ESU's Provost. Fourth, plaintiff alleges that her husband wrote a letter
to Dr. Jackie Vietti, ESU's Interim President, asking her to investigate the racial slur and
reporting his belief that he and his wife were victims of retaliation. Fifth, plaintiff alleges that
she met with the Human Resources employee charged with writing a report about the racial slur.
Plaintiff asserts that she discussed with the Human Resources employee both her concerns about
the April 8, 2015 incident and earlier incidents of discrimination by Ms. Rittgers. Finally,
plaintiff alleges that, when Dr. Hale met with Dr. Alexander on July 7, 2015, Dr. Alexander said
"she was 'blindsided' by allegations of misconduct direct towards her and Rittgers." Id. ir 76
(emphasis added). This allegation confirms that plaintiff complained not only about the April 8,
2015 incident but also about Dr. Alexander and Ms. Rittgers.
Viewing all of these facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the Complaint alleges
that plaintiff reported more than just one incident of racial discrimination to ESU on more than
one occasion. The court recognizes that plaintiffs husband made some of the reports, but
viewing the allegations in plaintiffs favor, the Complaint alleges that plaintiffs husband was
8
complaining for her. See O'Neal v. Ferguson Constr. Co., 237 F.3d 1248, 1255 (10th Cir. 2001)
(concluding that "whether [plaintiff] or his attorney wrote the letter is wholly irrelevant" when
"[t]he letter was an informal complaint which disclosed [plaintiffs] dissatisfaction with his new
position" and characterized it "as retaliatory conduct"). For example, with the first complaint in
December 2014, plaintiffs husband told Dr. Alexander that plaintiff would not return to work at
the SLIM unless ESU met certain conditions, including that plaintiff move to a different office,
away from Ms. Rittgers-a request that Dr. Alexander accommodated, according to the
Complaint's allegations. These facts are sufficient to show that plaintiff complained about more
than just a single racist remark.
Second, Robinson differs from the facts alleged here because, in Robinson, the plaintiff
conceded in her witness statement that, at first, she was not offended by the comment. She said
that she didn't think her co-worker had used the racial slur negatively but was "just using the
term to describe a certain situation." Id. at 108. In contrast, here, plaintiffs Complaint describes
the alleged discriminatory acts as hostile and hate speech. Robinson also emphasized that
plaintiffs report did not claim that the employer did anything wrong; instead, it was the co-
employee making the racist comment. Id. at 113. But, here, plaintiff accuses ESU of
wrongdoing-she contends that ESU administrators either failed to investigate her complaints
properly or ignored them.
Finally, the Tenth Circuit considered plaintiffs retaliation claim in Robinson in the
context of a post-trial motion for a directed verdict, and not a motion to dismiss. In contrast,
here, plaintiffs allegations are sufficient at this early stage of the litigation if they "nudge[] [her]
claims across the line from conceivable to plausible." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Plaintiffs
Complaint in this case has satisfied that standard.
9
Defendants also cite a Supreme Court case holding that an employer was entitled to
summary judgment against a plaintiff's retaliation claim when she alleged only a single
discriminatory act. See Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268, 271 (2001) (per curium)
(holding that "[n]o reasonable person could have believed that the single incident recounted
above violated Title VII's standard" when plaintiff's "job required her to review the sexually
explicit statement in the course of screening job applicants[,]" "[h]er co-workers who
participated in the hiring process were subject to the same requirement," and plaintiff "conceded
that it did not bother or upset her to read" the discriminatory statement). Breeden differs from
the facts alleged here for many of the same reasons that Robinson is different. Most importantly,
Breeden involved just one discriminatory remark. In contrast, plaintiff's Complaint here alleges
more than a single complaint about the use of one racial slur in the workplace. Plaintiff alleges
that she and her husband complained about that incident and several other alleged discriminatory
acts by Ms. Rittgers on several, independent occasions. These allegations suffice to state a
retaliation claim under Title VII and thus survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.
B. Plaintiff's 1983 Claim Against the Individual Defendants
Defendants assert that three arguments support dismissal of plaintiff's retaliation claim
under 1983 against the three individual defendants. First, defendants argue that plaintiff's
Complaint fails to state a claim under 1983 because her alleged speech is not a matter of public
concern entitled to First Amendment protection. Second, defendants assert that even if
plaintiff's speech is a matter of public concern, defendants Alexander, Cordle, and Vietti are
entitled to qualified immunity against plaintiff's 1983 claim. Finally, defendants contend that
Eleventh Amendment immunity bars plaintiff's official capacity claim against defendants
Alexander, Cordle, and Vietti.
10
Case 5:16-cv-04182-DDC-TJJ Document 30 Filed 07/14/17 Page 11of19
1. Does plaintiff's Complaint allege protected speech that is a

matter of public concern?
The Supreme Court has held that "a public employee does not relinquish First
Amendment rights to comment on matters of public interest by virtue of government
employment." Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 140 (1983) (citing Pickering v. Bd. of Educ.,
391 U.S. 563, 568 (1968)). But, at the same time, the Supreme Court recognizes that "[w]hen a
citizen enters government service, the citizen by necessity must accept certain limitations on his
or her freedom" because "[g]overnment employers, like private employers, need a significant
degree of control over their employees' words and actions; without it, there would be little
chance for the efficient provision of public services." Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 418
(2006) (citations omitted). The Supreme Court thus instructs courts to balance carefully the
competing "interests of the [employee], as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public
concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public
services it performs through its employees." Helget v. City of Hays, Kan., 844 F.3d 1216, 1221
(10th Cir. 2017) (quoting Lane v. Franks, 134 S. Ct. 2369, 2374 (2014) (further quotation
omitted)).
To balance those competing interests carefully, the court applies the five step
Garcetti/Pickering test to determine whether plaintiff has stated a First Amendment retaliation
claim. Id. The five steps require the court to consider these five factors:
(1) whether the speech was made pursuant to an employee's official duties; (2)
whether the speech was on a matter of public concern; (3) whether the
government's interests, as employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public
service are sufficient to outweigh the plaintiffs free speech interests; (4) whether
the protected speech was a motivating factor in the adverse employment action;
and (5) whether the defendant would have reached the same employment decision
in the absence of the protected conduct.
11
Id. at 1221-22 (quoting Trant v. Oklahoma, 754 F.3d 1158, 1165 (10th Cir. 2014) (further
quotation omitted)). The first three steps are questions of law for the court to decide. Id.
(citation omitted). The last two steps are questions of fact. Id. (citation omitted).
Defendants argue that plaintiff fails to allege facts to support the second element of this
test-that plaintiffs speech involved a matter of public concern. This element requires the
employee to allege that her speech "involves a matter of public concern and not merely a
personal issue internal to the workplace." Moore v. City of Wynnewood, 57 F.3d 924, 931 (10th
Cir. 1995) (citing Connick, 461 U.S. at 146-47); see also Morris v. City of Colo. Springs, 666
F.3d 654, 661 (10th Cir. 2012) ("[S]peech relating to internal personnel disputes and working
conditions ordinarily will not be viewed as addressing matters of public concern." (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted)). In other words, "speech that simply airs 'grievances of a
purely personal nature' typically does not involve matters of public concern." Brammer-Hoelter
v. Twin Peaks Charter Acad., 492 F.3d 1192, 1205 (10th Cir. 2007) (quoting Connick, 461 U.S.
at 147-48).
Speech is a matter of public concern "when it can be fairly considered as relating to any
matter of political, social, or other concern to the community, or when it is a subject of legitimate
news interest; that is, a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public." Lane,
134 S. Ct. at 2380 (quoting Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443, 453 (2011)). "The inquiry turns on
the 'content, form, and context' of the speech." Id. (quoting Connick, 461 U.S. at 147-148). In
Connick v. Myers, the Supreme Court stated that "racial discrimination" is "a matter inherently
of public concern." 461 U.S. at 148 n.8; see also Quigley v. Rosenthal, 327 F.3d 1044, 1060
(10th Cir. 2003) (explaining that Connick stated that '"racial discrimination,' at least in the
12
context of public-employment, is 'a matter inherently of public concern."' (quoting Connick, 461
U.S. at 148 n.8)).
Defendants assert that plaintiff never alleges that her speech involved a matter of public
concern because the Complaint only alleges that plaintiff spoke of a personal grievance arising
out of her own working conditions. The court doesn't read plaintiff's Complaint so narrowly.
Instead, construing the Complaint's allegations liberally and viewing them in the light most
favorable to plaintiff, it appears that plaintiff's speech addressed both her personal grievances
and a purported culture at ESU that allegedly discriminates against African-Americans. For
example, the Complaint alleges that "ESU fosters a white-dominated culture that does not appear
to feel the need to diversify, starting from the top down." Doc. 1 ~ 39. The Complaint also
alleges that plaintiff and her husband's complaints "represented a threat to the racial lens at the
SLIM." Doc. 1 ~ 33. And, the Complaint alleges that the Hales attempted to report the racial
slur incident as a hate crime with the ESU Police Department but that the ESU Police
Department Chief refused to investigate the matter and concluded that no crime had occurred.
Construing these allegations liberally and in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the Complaint
alleges that plaintiff's complaints about racial discrimination involved both her own personal
complaints and speech about a matter of public concern sufficient to survive a Rule 12(b)( 6)
motion to dismiss.
The court recognizes that discovery eventually may support or fail to support the
Complaint's allegations. But, at this stage, plaintiff's Complaint only needs to assert facts that,
accepted as true, allege plaintiff's speech addressed a matter of public concern. Plaintiff has
satisfied this pleading standard sufficient to survive defendants' motion to dismiss.
13
2. Are defendants entitled to qualified immunity?
"Qualified immunity 'gives government officials breathing room to make reasonable but
mistaken judgments about open legal questions."' Lane, 134 S. Ct. at 2381 (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)). Qualified immunity shields a government official from a money damages
award in his or her personal capacity "unless 'the official violated a statutory or constitutional
right,' and 'the right was "clearly established" at the time of the challenged conduct.'" Lane,
134 S. Ct. at 2381 (quoting al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 735). So, on a motion to dismiss based on
qualified immunity, "a court must consider 'whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged ...
make out a violation of a constitutional right,' and 'whether the right at issue was clearly
established at the time of defendant's alleged misconduct.'" Leverington v. City of Colo.
Springs, 643 F.3d 719, 732 (10th Cir. 2011) (quoting Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232
(2009)). The Supreme Court has held that courts have discretion to decide "which of the two
prongs of the qualified immunity analysis" to address "first in light of the circumstances in the
particular case at hand." Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236.
"Although qualified immunity defenses are typically resolved at the summary judgment
stage, district courts may grant motions to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity." Thomas
v. Kaven, 765 F.3d 1183, 1194 (10th Cir. 2014). Asserting a qualified immunity defense in a
Rule 12(b)(6) motion, however, "subjects the defendant to a more challenging standard ofreview
than would apply on summary judgment." Id. (quoting Peterson v. Jensen, 371F.3d1199, 1201
(10th Cir. 2004)). This is so because at the motion to dismiss stage, the court scrutinizes
defendants' conduct as alleged in the complaint for "objective legal reasonableness." Behrens v.
Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 309 (1996). But, on summary judgment, the plaintiff no longer can rest
14
on the pleadings, and the court considers the evidence in the summary judgment record when
conducting the qualified immunity inquiry. Id.
Here, the court concludes that plaintiffs Complaint alleges facts sufficient to establish
that the individual defendants violated a clearly established constitutional right. The Complaint
alleges that defendants Alexander, Cordle, and Vietti terminated plaintiffs employment contract
in retaliation for exercising her First Amendment rights to speak out against discrimination and
racism. As explained in the above section, Supreme Court precedent clearly establishes that "a
state cannot condition public employment on a basis that infringes the employee's
constitutionally protected interest in freedom of expression." Connick, 461 U.S . at 142; see also
Lane, 134 S. Ct. at 2377 ("[P]ublic employees do not renounce their citizenship when they
accept employment, and this Court has cautioned time and again that public employers may not
condition employment on the relinquishment of constitutional rights." (citations omitted)).
Indeed, the Supreme Court has found it "essential that public employees be able to speak out
freely [on matters of public concern] without fear ofretaliat[ion]." Connick, 461 U.S. at 149; see
also Lane, 134 S. Ct. at 2377 ("Speech by citizens on matters of public concern lies at the heart
of the First Amendment," and "[t]his remains true when speech concerns information related to
or learned through public employment.").
The court thus concludes that plaintiffs Complaint alleges that the individual defendants
violated a clearly established constitutional right when they terminated plaintiffs employment
contract as retaliation for her exercise of First Amendment protected speech. Plaintiffs
Complaint sufficiently alleges facts to support this claim. So, defendants are not entitled to
qualified immunity at this stage in the proceedings.
15
3. Does Eleventh Amendment immunity bar plaintiff's official

capacity claims?
Finally, defendants assert that the Eleventh Amendment bars plaintiffs official capacity
claims against defendants Alexander, Cordle, and Vietti. The Eleventh Amendment generally
bars suits against states and their agencies based on their sovereign immunity. Levy v. Kan.
Dep 't of Soc. and Rehab. Servs., 789 F.3d 1164, 1168 (10th Cir. 2015) (quoting Bd. ofTrs. of
Univ. ofAla. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 363 (2001) ("The ultimate guarantee of the Eleventh
Amendment is that nonconsenting States may not be sued by private individuals in federal
court.")). But, three exceptions to Eleventh Amendment immunity exist:
First, a state may consent to suit in federal court. Second, Congress may abrogate
a state's sovereign immunity by appropriate legislation when it acts under Section
5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Finally, under Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28
S. Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), a plaintiff may bring suit against individual state
officers acting in their official capacities if the complaint alleges an ongomg
violation of federal law and the plaintiff seeks prospective relief.
Id. (quoting Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Pruitt, 669 F.3d 1159, 1166 (10th Cir. 2012)).
Here, defendants assert that the Eleventh Amendment bars plaintiffs official capacity
claims against the three individual defendants (who are state officials) because the State never
has consented to suit under 1983, Congress never has abrogated the states' sovereign immunity
from those suits, and plaintiffs Complaint just seeks retroactive money damages as relief. The
court agrees. See Ellis v. Univ. ofKan. Med. Ctr., 163 F.3d 1186, 1196 & n.13 (10th Cir. 1998)
(explaining that the Eleventh Amendment barred plaintiffs 1981, 1983, and 1985 claims for
money damages against state officials in their official capacities); see also Hale v. Emporia State
Univ., No. 15-4947-SAC-KGS, 2016 WL 917896, at *3 (D. Kan. Mar. 8, 2016) (holding that the
Eleventh Amendment barred plaintiffs 1983 claims for money damages against ESU and the
individual defendants in their official capacities).
16
In her Opposition to defendants' Motion to Dismiss, plaintiff asserts that her claims fall
within the Ex Parte Young exception to the Eleventh Amendment's guarantee of sovereign
immunity. Doc. 19 at 18. Ex Parte Young held that "the Eleventh Amendment generally will
not operate to bar suits so long as they (i) seek only declaratory and injunctive relief rather than
monetary damages for alleged violations of federal law, and (ii) are aimed against state officers
acting in their official capacities, rather than against the State itself." Hill v. Kemp, 478 F.3d
1236, 1255-56 (10th Cir. 2007) (citing Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. at 159-60). But, plaintiff
concedes that her Complaint never requests the requisite declaratory or injunctive relief, as the
Ex Parte Young exception demands. Plaintiff's Opposition provides "preliminary proposals" of
injunctive relief but contends "that the specific mode of any injunctive relief should be deferred
until after discovery." Doc. 19 at 19. And, importantly, her Complaint never asks for
prospective injunctive relief that would allow her to assert her official capacity claims against the
individual defendants consistent with Ex Parte Young. Thus, the Ex Parte Young exception does
not apply here.
To the extent plaintiff seeks to amend her Complaint to include a request for injunctive
relief, she may file the appropriate motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 and D. Kan. Rule 15.1. The
court cautions plaintiff, however, that any requested injunctive relief must seek prospective relief
that the three named individual defendants have the power to perform. See Klein v. Univ. of
Kan. Med. Ctr., 97 5 F. Supp. 1408, 1417 (D. Kan. 1997) (explaining that a federal court may
grant prospective injunctive relief against a state official acting in his or her official capacity but
"the state official must have the power to perform the act required in order to overcome the
jurisdictional bar of the Eleventh Amendment" (citing Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. at 157)).
17
Many of plaintiffs "preliminary proposals" for injunctive relief seek retroactive relief.
See Doc. 19 ,-i A (seeking an order that "Defendants engaged in conduct subject to penalty under
42 U.S.C. 1983 and Title Vil"), ,-i B (seeking an order that "Defendants engaged in a sham
investigation and a cover-up involving allegations of a bias incident at ESU" and requiring
defendants to "retract their claim that at fair, logical and thorough investigation was done"), ,-i D
(seeking an order requiring the ESU Bulletin (a student newspaper) to retract "false statements
attributed to [plaintiff] or her husband, and admit to publishing false narratives and allegations
against [plaintiff]"). Also, many of plaintiffs "preliminary proposals" seek reliefthat the three
named individual defendants lack the power to implement. See id. ,-i C (seeking an order
requiring Ms. Rittgers (who is not a defendant in the case) "to submit to a forensic handwriting
examination and polygraph test to determine whether she wrote the racial epithet"), ,-i D (seeking
an order requiring the ESU Bulletin (not a defendant in this case) to retract statements), ,-i E
(seeking reinstatement for plaintiff as Assistant to the Dean for Marketing in SLIM). Plaintiff
cannot assert such claims and avoid application of the Eleventh Amendment immunity bar.
Thus, if plaintiff seeks leave to amend her Complaint to request injunctive relief of this
kind, the request would be futile because the Ex Parte Young exception does not exempt these
claims from the Eleventh Amendment's sovereign immunity bar. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S.
178, 182 (1962) (explaining that a court may deny leave to amend based on the futility of the
proposed amendment).
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons explained above, the court grants in part and denies in part defendants'
Motion to Dismiss. The court grants defendants' Motion to Dismiss plaintiffs official capacity
18
claims against defendants Gwen Alexander, David Cordle, and Jackie Vietti, but denies the
motion in all other respects.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT defendants' Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. 17) is granted in part and denied in part.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 14th day of July, 2017, at Topeka, Kansas.
s/ Daniel D. Crabtree
Daniel D. Crabtree
United States District Judge
19

DISTRICT OF KANSAS
ANGELICA HALE,
Plaintiff
v.

Defendants.
DECLARATION OF MELVIN HALE, Ph.D.

(Plaintiffs Motion, Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, and
Declaration of Angelica Hale filed separately.)
I, MELVIN HALE declare:
I am the spouse of Angelica Hale, the named Plaintiff in Case No. 16-4182-DDC-TJJ,
which is captioned Angelica Hale v. Emporia State University, et al., and was filed in the District
of Kansas.
. I make this declaration upon my own personal knowledge of the facts unless otherwise
stated.
1. Exhibit A, pgs. 3, 20, 21 - At the time that I recorded my conversation with Dr.
Alexander I was employed at Emporia State University in the School of Library and Information
Management (SLIM), and Dr. Alexander was the Dean and my direct supervisor. My wife,
Angelica also worked in SLIM as assistant to the dean for marketing. The context of Exhibit A
comes on the heels of a growing dispute with the dean regarding what we felt were
discriminatory practices and behaviors, and more importantly, her failure to take action on an
incident of hate speech which occurred on or about April 8, 2015. She had come to the fourth
floor on July 7th where our offices were located (her office was on the third floor), and after
seeming to have spoken to everyone except Angelica and I, I went to her office to see what was
on her mind. The conversation did not immediately go to the disputed issues, but it picked up
steam, to the point where she says, Its Kansas. The implication was clear. We were from
California, and the culture and conduct of Kansas was different.
2. Exhibit B, pg. 8 - After Angelica and I spoke with the dean on April 8, 2015 about the
incident involving the students notebook, we felt it best to keep a lid on the matter, and not
reveal it to anyone. After about a week had gone by, and Angelica had been told daily by the
student that the dean had not approached her, I decided to let Mirah know to get her idea on what
should be done. Mirah appeared to be dismayed that the dean had not addressed the matter, so I
asked her to talk to Gwen to see if she could find out what was going on. That would have been
towards the middle of April. Mirahs office, and my office, and Angelicas office were really
close together, so we saw each other on a regular basis. I dont recall hearing anything back from
Mirah, about her conversation(s) with the dean, but we did talk about the matter occasionally,
and were mystified that nothing affirmative was being done. My first in-depth conversation with
Mirah on this took place on the phone on August 17, 2015, when things had become widely
publicized. We were both talking in the evening from home, and it was a very candid
conversation. At the time, I considered Mirah a supporter and a confidant. She was sort of like
my mentor on the faculty, having been there for over sixteen years. Exhibit B is a partial
transcript of that conversation. Mirah has a tendency to talk in run-on sentences, so it was
difficult to transcribe, but I think the gist of the conversation is apparent.
2
3. Exhibit C, pg. 9 When it became apparent that Dean Alexander was going to try to lie
her way out of her failure to immediately tackle the incident that occurred in the students office,
and that the administration was going to back her version of events, we did something that we
will always view as one of the most important actions in this situation: we had our then-attorney,
David Trevio, contact the student to get independent verification that Alexander was not being
truthful when she said that she talked with the student the day of, or even the day after the
incident. She actually didnt approach her until June after we had contacted the Provost.
4. Exhibit D, pg. 9 I was rather shocked at the conduct of both Dean Alexander and
Andrew Smith in this meeting, if for no other reason that the dean had brought the subject of the
march up at the previous faculty meeting two weeks prior. She had asked me how the march was
going and how many people did I expect to attend. I replied that I didnt know, but that we
expected someone to show up besides us. That was about it. As was my custom, I sent Mirah
Dow, faculty head, an email prior to the meeting stating that I intended to say a few words about
the march in the faculty meeting. I was surprised not to see it on the agenda. After Gwen and
Andrew finished attacking me, it was apparent that one of them had asked Mirah not to include it
on the list of topics. I had never seen any subject regarded as off-limits in the faculty meeting. I
only wanted about five minutes. I had a handout, and some letters of support from faculty and
librarians around the country. Its a good thing I had my recorder on when I did. It shows just
how much rage and anger our protests had created. I believe that it is a clear First Amendment
violation, and Title VII violation.
5. Exhibit M, pg. 16 Very few things have been as frustrating and at the same time
indicative of how structural racism works than how we saw it play out in the media. If I ever had
3
any doubts about the lack of objectivity and fairness in journalism, they have been erased,
permanently. Institutions and large organizations with powerful allies can easily practice racism
and discrimination by intimidation. If it has the emotional allegiances and a fan base, it can be
nearly impossible to penetrate its media defenses. Reporter Jessie Wagoner and the Emporia
Gazette received a visit from Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt on or about March 16,
2017 where he supposedly talks about legal issues relevant to the Emporia community, but he
makes no mention about the three federal lawsuits on his docket in Topeka. Schmidt instead talks
about scams, school finance, elder abuse and childcare. The same day, low and behold I get a
cryptic message from Wagoner telling me she intends to do a story about Debra Rittgers case
against me for defamation in Lyon County. When I write her back and tells her that I have
moved the case to federal court, and that my countersuit for First Amendment retaliation has
survived a motion to dismiss, and now Im going after Rittgers, Wagoner never writes back, even
though I left her a voicemail message. As long as a story can disparage the foes of ESU, thats
fine, but dont the shoe get on the other foot. I have concluded from my experiences with the
Gazette, KVOE and the Topeka Capital Journal that bias can be a baseline in American media.
6. Exhibit N, pg. 16 As mentioned above, I was greatly disappointed to discover that a
major newspaper in the capital city of Kansas could be so beholden to powerful interests as to
sweep our litigation under the rug. I am certain that if ESU had won a victory over us that it
would have been front page news. What Smith did was really sickening and disgusting to me.
7. Exhibit O, pg. 17 Of all the outside influences that I believe hold sway over Emporia
State University, none is more potent than Koch Enterprises, and a lot of that has to do with the
fact that ESU alums fill the halls of that conglomerate. Under no circumstances do I believe that
4
our protests at ESU escaped the attention of principals at Koch. If they wanted ESU to behave
differently, all it would have taken was a phone call.
8. Exhibit Q, pg. 18 When we arrived at the Preston Room in the Memorial Union on
November 19, I expected to just take a seat and see what was happening with ESUs diversity
initiative. Instead, I ended up in the hallway with the press after they were kicked out. Shortly
after that, Shelly Gehrke, one of the VPs at ESU, got up and pulled down the shades on the
windows facing us in the hallway. Afterwards, Page came out and got an earful from the press.
Kevin Johnson was there, along with Gwen Larson, ESUs media relations person. I let Robert
Page know that he was stepping into the middle of an unfinished controversy, and that maybe he
should educate himself on the facts before taking sides. Page was there at the behest of his client
Jackie Vietti and Jason Brooks. He wasnt there for social justice. He was there to get paid to
help ESU appear to be a model of diversity.
9. Exhibit C, pg. 9 As previously noted, Page is making a career of being a hired
diversity gun. He has landed himself a great job as Executive Director of Inclusion and
Engagement at the Metropolitan Community College in Kansas City, Missouri. Having
conversed with him, and listened to him on KVOE, Page comes across to me as bumbling,
ignorant and unprofessional.
10. Material Fact #1, pg. 19 - Although Angelica is more than capable of standing up for
herself, as her husband, and the one who was responsible for taking the lead role in coming to
Kansas, I felt it was my responsibility to set people who I believed had offended her straight.
Unfortunately, that included Debra Rittgers. Although to hear Rittgers tell it, that there were
legitimate reasons why she did the things I felt were discriminatory, there are other less benign
reasons, such as racism. When I arrived Alexander had just fired Rajesh Singh and Cameron
5
Tuai, both faculty of color, and there was a great deal of controversy swirling around that
situation. I refused to get pulled into that, or to take sides, but it seemed very apparent that
Alexander felt that she could operate with a heavy hand without impunity at ESU. I, on the other
hand, was going to let her know that both Angelica and I were not happy with what we perceived
as racial discrimination, and that we wanted her to do something about it. That never happened. I
spoke with the dean in December 2014 about specific issues involving my wife, and again in
July 2015. After Angelica told Gwen that we were going to see an attorney. Gwen said that she
didnt have to worry about getting sued because the Attorney General handled that. After our
discussion with Cordle, which took place late in June, Gwen also told Angelica that the Provost
said that our concerns were vague. That was a slap in the face because I doubt that we have
never been vague about anything so important.
11. Exhibit T, Material Fact #3, pg. 20 After sending a June 15, 2015 email to David
Cordle asking him to meet with us to discuss our concerns about the April 8th incident, we sat
down with him and HR Director Judy Anderson on or about June 30th. Cordle relayed to us that
Alexander told him that she spoke with the student early in the process, and we told him that that
was false. When we were leaving his office he said that he had five things on his list that he
intended to investigate, and that he would get back to us. He never did.
12. Exhibit U, Material Fact #4, pg. 20 & Material Fact #18, pg. 21 I wrote Dr. Vietti
because I wanted to have a deep conversation about the falsehoods that were being told
regarding the incident, and about the way Angelica and I were being treated by Dean Alexander.
I think it speaks for itself. I told her about Wendy Carlsons expert handwriting opinion because
I had heard Wendy disparaged and dismissed by both Vietti, Johnson and Alexander. Vietti
steadfastly refused to meet with us. I told her that I believe that your leadership of Emporia
6
State University may come to be known as the darkest days in the history of this institution. I
still believe that.
13. Material Fact #5, pg. 20 - I spoke with Ray Lauber on July 20, 2015 at his request. He
said that he was doing a private report for Interim President Jackie Vietti that was intended for
her eyes only. He called it fact finding, and that he was using the universities HR grievance
process without a person.
14. Material Fact #10, pg. 20 - On or about July 1, 2015, Angelica and I decided to take our
concerns about the incident to the ESU PD. Our view was the matter should be investigated by
law enforcement. The ESU PD said that they had discussed the matter with university
administrators, and that they would not be calling it a hate crime, and thus would not do an
investigation, and that there would be no formal report. Instead, he said that they would log it as
an incident, and that we could not obtain an incident report. The next morning I called Marc
Goodman at the Lyon County Attorneys office and left a message about our concerns, but he
never returned that call.
15. Exhibit X, Material Fact#15, pg. 21 When I met with Ray Lauber on July 20, 2015, I
gave him Dr. Dows name as someone to whom I had discussed the incident in the students
office. She was the only person in the faculty I told about it, primarily as I have stated earlier, to
see if she could get the dean to respond in a more affirmative manner. Lauber said that he would
indeed talk to Mirah. About a month later, on or about August 25, I passed Mirah in the hallway
near our offices, and as usual, we struck up a conversation. All of a sudden, Mirah acted as if she
had been struck by lightning. She gave me an awkward smile and said that Ray had told her not
to talk with me. Looking back, this was odd because the results of the investigation had not
been published, neither had we instituted any legal action. We did not file a case against the
7
university until mid-October. So there was no legal reason why she shouldnt talk to me,
except to fall into line with an official policy of ignoring me.
16. Material Fact #16, pg. 21 - After the results of the investigation were announced,
Vietti began a whirlwind tour of student and university organizations. Although Angelica and I
had attended BSU meetings, all of a sudden, shortly after the march, we were shunned and told
not to attend. The agenda of the BSU meeting on September 24, 2015 asks the question: Have
you ever disassociated yourself from people in your community? Clearly, shunning the Hales
was an official university policy that extended to students.
17. Material Fact #17, pg. 21 - Although I had been placed in a Cooling Off Period, in
which I was forbidden to go to my office or speak to my colleagues, when I got a call from a
Special Agent from the Topeka FBI, I decided to take him there. He had been referred to
Angelica and I after we had attended a Hate Crime Symposium in Kansas City, Kansas where we
met representatives of the agency. I met him on campus and I took him to my office in SLIM. I
still had my office keys. I thought that having an FBI agent with me would fend off the enforcers
of the Cooling Off Period, and besides, I wanted him to see what was happening from a first
person perspective. I was somewhat surprised when Cordle and Johnson arrived. The agent
showed them his badge and announced himself and asked them a few questions. When he was
done, the pair turned to me and Angelica and Kevin Johnson said that we were banished from
the campus, and werent supposed to be there. That was the first time that Angelica and I heard
that we were banished from the campus. I thought that I was only banished from SLIM. Cordle
and Johnson left, and soon after Mirah Dow joined us in my office. She left, and shortly
thereafter, we left. As we were heading down the stairs we saw Debra Rittgers, Candance
Kitselman and Kathy Buckman leaving the campus in Rittgers car, which was a very strange
8
sight that raised red flags since it was in the middle of the afternoon and they were not usually
allowed to leave SLIM offices all at the same time. Had Cordle and Johnson sent them scurrying
to avoid having to possibly answer questions from the FBI? That is what I will always believe.
Shortly after this, Cordle requested my office keys.
18. Material Fact #18, pg. 21 - As stated earlier in paragraph 12, Vietti shut us down and
treated us like persona non grata. That was a clear violation of ESU Title VII guidelines.
19. Exhibit BB, pg. 10 - The university provided the press what should have been
confidential information regarding the termination of my contract and the last day I would be
paid at ESU, in a manner that came across more like it was not personnel information, and that
they were sending a message to the community announcing their actions on my demise. KVOE
had no problem publishing a story about my demise, but refused to publish a story about a ruling
in my federal lawsuit which proved that I was very much alive, as was my federal case.
I declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to the laws of the State of Kansas and the
United States of America, that the foregoing is true and correct. This Declaration was executed
on October 6, 2017 in Wichita, Kansas.
Dated: October 6, 2017 Respectfully yours,
/s/ Melvin Hale, Ph.D.

Melvin Hale
P.O. Box 34179
916-690-7927
reefresh@yahoo.com
9
DECLARATION OF MELVIN HALE, Ph.D.
/s/ Angelica Hale


DISTRICT OF KANSAS
ANGELICA HALE,
Plaintiff
v.

Defendants.
DECLARATION OF ANGELICA HALE

(Plaintiffs Motion, Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, and
Declaration of Melvin Hale filed separately.)
I, ANGELICA HALE declare:
I am the named Plaintiff in Case No. 16-4182-DDC-TJJ, which is captioned Angelica
Hale v. Emporia State University, et al., and was filed in the District of Kansas.
. I make this declaration upon my own personal knowledge of the facts unless otherwise
stated.
1. Page 6 - After the discovery of the slur found in my graduate students office, I checked
daily and over the next couple of weeks to see if Gwen had followed-up with the student about
the incident.
2. Page 7 - I spoke with Mirah Dow about the incident and my concerns that Gwen had not
followed up with the graduate assistant.

3. Page 8 - After Dr. Hale met with Gwen Alexander on July 7, 2015, I saw Gwen standing
in the parking lot having a discussion with Jackie Vietti.
4. Exhibit C, pg. 9 - On August 12, 2015, I was in communication with my then-attorney
David Trevio who said via email that he was in touch with the graduate student who said that
she did not hear from Gwen about the April 8th incident until sometime in June 2015.
5. Exhibit E, pg. 10, Material Fact #9, pg. 20 - On July 29, 2015 The Associated Press
published a story mentioning that Dr. Hale and I were planning a march against racism slated for
September 15, 2015, which was also the same day as the 2015 March on Selma, a national march
for civil rights.
6. Exhibit F, pg. 10 - On September 9, 2015 ESU, Jackie Vietti and Kevin Johnson
conducted a press conference at ESU to share their inaccurate findings of the thorough, logical,
and fair investigation with the media and gave disparaging information and negative innuendos
about the character and motives of the Hales. Vietti announced that they were going to have a
more inclusive Hornet Nation where ALL voices are heard and transparency is imperative.
7. Exhibit G, pg. 11 - During the press conference on September 9, 2015 ESU General
Counsel Kevin Johnson gave a false account of the way things transpired on the day of the hate
incident in April 2015. He used his fingers to give a visual depiction of the actions of the
graduate student at the T on the 3rd floor, nowhere near where the student interacted with me
on the 4th floor. The story and photo of Johnson using his hands to tell the story was published in
the ESU Bulletin, a university student newspaper.
8. Exhibit H, pg. 12, Material Fact #2, pg. 20 - Immediately after finding out about the
incident on April 8, 2015 I texted Dr. Hale to let him know what happened. He was in a meeting
2
with Gwen Alexander and the rest of the faculty. I then went downstairs to meet with Gwen and
Dr. Hale to discuss what happened in the students office and asked for her to investigate.
9. Exhibit I, pg. 14 - Jackie Vietti sent out a declaration of ESUs findings to various
entities including the Emporia Connection, ESUs coveted black alumni association. One
member, Allie Flanary, who happens to also be an alum of SLIM re-posted Viettis declaration
to her Google Plus page along with a disparaging preface directed at the my husband and I: Not
today, asshats.
10. Exhibit J, pg. 14 - When the Emporia Gazette printed the story about ESUs
investigation results on September 10, 2015, one story commenter posted that The verdict is in
and the majority of Hornet nation believes that a fair inquiry has been conducted
11. Exhibit AA, pg. 15, Exhibit K, pg. 15 - Although ESU president Allison Garrett is
blanketing the university, the media and the community with her their diversity initiative
statement, Our goal is to become a model for diversity, equity and inclusion, which she
repeated again in an interview with KVOE since taking leadership, I stated in my original
complaint, that ESU fosters a white-dominated culture that does not appear to feel the need to
diversify, starting from the top down. The evidence of this white-dominated top-down
leadership is on full display, evidenced by the Presidents Cabinet members shown in ESU
marketing materials. A consultant hired to review how the campus looked in terms of diversity
told the university: If you have a motto and its about diversity, then prove it. It just cant be lip
service.
12. Exhibit L, pg. 15 - As a result of the incident on April 8, 2015, ESU created a University
Diversity Initiative and also added a fifth University Goal. They created pomp and circumstance
around the new initiative which they unveiled to the public and media, further smothering the
3
Hales dissenting voices. They continue to try to drown out the Hales voices by making a loud
noise surrounding their newly released propaganda tool: the ESU Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
Plan.
13. Exhibit M, pg. 16 - We made efforts to share the developments of our story to the local
media, but over time, the outlets stopped covering important new developments of our story.
This was especially true in 2017 where those outlets that received support or advertising from
ESU turned a deaf ear to the July 14, 2017 decision handed down by Federal Judge Daniel
Crabtree removing immunity from the university and all other defendants in my case and
individuals in Dr. Hales case. Not one media outlet, including KVOE, the Emporia Gazette and
the ESU Bulletin, the university newspaper shared the news that we sent to them about the July
14 decision. It didnt make the university look good, so they werent going to publish it.
14. Exhibit R, pg. 18 - To add to the mountain of rhetoric that ESU had already heaped on
the public regarding leading the nation in diversity and inclusion, ESU and the ESU Foundation
paid large sums of money to speakers to come to the campus and talk about civil rights,
transparency and diversity. One of those speakers, who was paid a substantial donation, was
former civil rights attorney Fred Gray. He was also awarded an honorary doctorate intentionally
on the first anniversary date of our first march, September 15, 2016 as part of incoming president
Allison Garretts inauguration festivities. The inauguration festivities lasted 3 days and was a
great distraction for the community to forget about the protests of the previous year in 2015. The
inauguration and Fred Grays visit was covered by some national media and all of the local
media, including KVOE, the Emporia Gazette and the ESU Bulletin.
4
15. Exhibit S, pg. 19 - There was a letter written from Black and Latino Faculty to ESU
administrators that spoke out about the issues of racism on campus and the lack of diversity as it
related to students, faculty and staff at the university.
16. Page 19 - Jason Brooks, the newly promoted Associate Dean of Diversity and Inclusion
told KVOE on February 25, 2016 that there dont seem to be any deep-seated racism or
diversity issues on campus, although there are what he calls microaggressions case-by-case
dealings that could be alleviated with what he calls cultural competency. This, despite the fact
that there were anti-Islam posters put up around campus. They like to use the term hateful
messages rather than hate speech.
17. Material Fact #6, pg. 20, Material Fact #10, pg. 20 - Dr. Hale and I went to the
Emporia State Police Department (ESUPD) so that they could take a police report about the
April 8, 2017 incident.
18. Material Fact #8, pg. 20 - I complained in an Open Letter about the climate in ESU and
SLIM, and of my concerns regarding campus racism, discrimination and the lack of diversity at
ESU; as well as my personal experiences with discrimination and retaliation.
19. Exhibit W, Material Fact #11, pg. 20 This is an email in which Gwen is speaking
about the great job that I had done while employed there while asking for recommendations for
other candidates to fill my position.
20. Material Fact #12, pg. 20 - Before I spoke out against racism and discrimination on
campus, my employment contract was renewed multiple times.
21. Material Fact #13, pg. 21 - Gwen Alexander met with me to talk about a permanent job
and encouraged me to enroll in classes at ESU to complete my Bachelors degree while working
5
for her. She said that having the Bachelors degree would give me even greater future
opportunities as I moved up through the ranks of the University.
22. Exhibit X, Material Fact #15, pg. 21 - After reporting discrimination on campus, I
received an email from Dr. Hale stating that Mirah Dow told him that Ray Lauber told her to
stop communicating with him.
23. Exhibit Y, Material Fact #16, pg. 21 - After the march against racism held on
September 15, 2015, the Black Student Union met with Jackie Vietti in closed-door meetings
that Dr. Hale and I were asked not to attend. After that meeting, the Black Student Union broke-
off to join the University administrations new plan to move forward, and separate from the
Hales.
24. Material Fact #17, pg. 21 - On December 2, 2015 Dr. Hale and I met with a special
agent from the Topeka branch of the FBI at the ESU campus. While we were in Dr. Hales
office, general counsel Kevin Johnson and Provost David Cordle came by and asked us to leave.
Kevin Johnson told the FBI agent that we were banned from campus.
25. Exhibit U, Material Fact #18, pg. 21 - Jackie Vietti never talked with me and Dr. Hale
about our concerns despite our repeated pleas to be heard. She repeatedly ignored our efforts to
communicate with her so that she could hear our side of the story personally, yet she took time to
personally meet with Debra Rittgers.
26. Exhibit Z, Material Fact #19, pg. 21 - ESU has a policy prohibiting repeated ignoring
of individuals on campus as part of their racial harassment and anti-discrimination policy.
6
I declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to the laws of the State of Kansas and the
United States of America, that the foregoing is true and correct. This Declaration was executed
on October 6, 2017 in Wichita, Kansas.
Dated: October 6, 2017 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Angelica Hale, Plaintiff Pro Se

P.O. Box 34179
916-690-7927
7
DECLARATION OF ANGELICA HALE
/s/ Angelica Hale


Angelica Hale Vs Emporia State University Et. Al - Motion For Summary Judgment (Highlighted)

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Angelica Hale Vs Emporia State University Et. Al - Motion For Summary Judgment (Highlighted)

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Case 5:16-cv-04182-DDC-TJJ Document 47 Filed 10/06/17 Page 1 of 60

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case No. 16-4182-DDC-TJJ

HALES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 4

III. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL UNDISPUTED FACTS 19

A. Plaintiff engaged in protected opposition to discrimination 19

IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW 21

V. LAW AND ARGUMENT 23

INDEX OF EXHIBITS Introduced into evidence by:

# Subject AH Decl. MH Decl. Memo

Q. Pages new position announced at Metro. Comm. College 9 18

American Civil Liberties Union of Md., Inc. v. Wicomico County

Applied Genetics Int'l, Inc. v. First Affiliated Secs., Inc.

Bacchus Indus., Inc. v. Arvin Indus., Inc.

Bennett v, Windstream Commcns, Inc.

Berry v. Stevinson Chevrolet

Crown Central Petroleum Corp. v. NLRB

Deepwater Invs., Ltd. v. Jackson Hole Ski Corp.

Dooley v. Parks & Recreation/or the Parish a/Ea. Baton Rouge

Estate of Smith v. Marasco

Goodwin v. City of Pittsburgh

Grant v. Hazelett Strip Casting Corp.

Hamilton v. Boise Cascade Exp.

Henry v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Hicks v. City of Watonga. Okla.

Jackson v. RKO Bottlers of Toledo, Inc.,

Jimenez v. City a/New York

Krouse v. Am. Sterilizer Co.

Krynicky v. University of Pittsburgh

Lackey v. County of Bernalillo

La Grande v. DeCresente Distrib. Co.

Ragusa v. Malverne Union Free Sch. Dist.,

Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press v. AT & T Co.

Sarno v. Douglas Elliman-Gibbons & Ives. Inc.

Smart v. Board of Trustees

Sumner v. U.S. Postal Serv.

Thoman v. Philips Med. Sys.

Todisco v. United States

United States v. McKeever

Vitus v. Beatrice Co.

U.S. SUPREME COURT

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

Crawford v. Metro Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County

Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed.

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp..

Robinson v. Shell Oil Co.

Univ. of Tex. Southern Med. v. Nassar

STATUTES AND RULES

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case No. 16-4182-DDC-TJJ

PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

judgment as a matter of law.

documents in discovery. Defendants are withholding potentially damning information related to

Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court disagreed, and stated that:

Defendants argued that:

The Court disagreed, and stated that:

named defendants, in their individual capacities, the Court stated that:

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Case. No. 15-cv-4947.

of Melvin Hale (hereinafter MH Decl.) 1, which is attached and is incorporated by reference

bewildered No. The Declaration of Angelica Hale (hereinafter AH Decl.) 1, which is