Introduction
The following outline highlights the blameworthy conduct of the respondents. The outline covers my experiences with the respondents since 2018 to date.
September 26, 2018
At 3:38pm, the UConn Office of Institutional Equity (OIE) received my Complaint of Discrimination and Discriminatory Harassment.
At 4:23 pm, Ms. Sarah Chipman, JD Director of Investigations & Deputy Title IX Coordinator, received an email from Ms. Ann Randall JD with copy of complaint of discrimination and discriminatory harassment in the Clinical Skills Assessment Program Dept of UConn School of Medicine.
At 4:48pm, Ms. Chipman emailed Mr. Robert Camilleri, Associate Investigator who was under her direct supervision, the following directive: “Bob, I want for you to handle this matter. I’m happy to discuss.” She carbon copied her orders to his other two departmental supervisors: Ms. Elizabeth Conklin JD, AVP Office of Institutional Equity and Title IX Coordinator, and Ms. Ann Randall JD EEO Investigator, Senior Director for OIE & Investigations and Deputy Title IX Coordinator.
February 2019
On February 14, 2019, I emailed the Title IX Coordinator, Ms. Elizabeth Conklin, and requested a review of my concerns pursuant to Title IX. Although it was my right, per the OIE departmental policies and the statute itself, to have my concerns reviewed pursuant to the statute, she refused to do so. She deceived and manipulated me when she responded by informing me of some of my rights per 46 a – 68 – 89. She directed me to the CHRO & EEOC and vaguely mentioned the statue limitations.
Ms. Elizabeth Conklin’s department was required to advise me of these rights immediately upon receiving my request for the OIE to address my concerns, not immediately after she had denied both requests for an appeal (one of which I was entitled to) and, in her view, the matter of my September 26 complaint had been handled. This is noteworthy because it shows that she was well aware her department did not comply with 46 a – 68 – 89, because if it had she would not have refused my title nine request because I’d already received it. Further, the foregoing shows that she was well aware that I had been intentionally deceived and manipulated, as well as been provided false misleading information (including by omissions) in order to cause me harm
June 2019
In June 2019, I sent an email to the CHRO asking them to add to my statement that Human Resources at UConn Health denied me my due process rights because I was never provided any written notification of termination. It is my contention that the HR also denied me my right to a Pre-disciplinary Hearing and a possible Post-Disciplinary Hearing.
Up to this day, HR has not complied with the policies, laws and Court Rulings they were well aware of. The rules required the department to remit to me UT-61 packet within 8 days. HR never provided me with the said UT-61 Packet. Besides, to this day, I am yet to receive any legal notifications from Human Resources.
It is only after sending a third request for copies of all documents in my personnel file via certified mail, return receipt requested, did I receive a response. I finally received the requested personnel records from HR on March 29, 2018, and I read a copy of the email the abusive employee sent to HR on March 2, 2018 asking them to terminate me and backdate the records. Human Resources falsified my official state employment records by backdating the termination date on their employee database. The HR then terminated me without informing my direct contact or either of my direct Supervisors. By the time I received the documents, the statute of limitations for reporting whistleblowing had about expired (90 days from the backdated termination date).
It is noteworthy that I was a contractual employee and on December 17, 2017, the department I work for remitted a form to human resources requesting that they renew my contract for calendar year 2018. While this did not seem to factor into Mr. Ronald Simpson’s August 7, 2019 dismissal of my case because it was “time-barred”, the CHRO auditor became concerned regarding the office of institutional equity noncompliance with 46 a – 68 – 89. Notably, the CHRO auditor inquired why the Office of Institutional Equity did not advise me of my rights, pursuant to both CGS 46a68-89, as well as UConn Polices enacted to protect a complainant’s Right of Due Process.
Under the said laws and policies, upon receiving my complaint, the OIE was required to immediately inform me of my rights pursuant to 46a – 68 – 89 as well as University Policies. The OIE was also required to give notice of my right to:
- Seek legal relief from external civil rights protection agencies such as CHRO, EEOC, US Department of education;
- Provide me with a list of the external civil rights protection agencies, which they can contact for assistance;
- Notice that there is a limited window of opportunity (statute of limitations) in which to do so;
- To inform a complainant that by just by filing a complaint with the OIE, (an internal agency of UConn), it does not pause or delay the statue limitations for these external civil rights protection agencies;
- To remit to the complainant a written reminder of the their right to seek simultaneous legal relief from external civil rights protection agencies, and to include in this reminder Limited time frame (SOL) and the fact that by filing with the OIE does not pause or extend the statue limitations for these agencies;
- Advisement of my right to have a support person (legal representation) with me at all meetings and hearings; and
- To complete the (arbitration) process in 90 days or less.
It is also clear that the decision to take this course of action was made less 30 minutes after I faxed my complaint. Having read my complaint, Ms. Sarah Chipman Senior Investigator of the Office of Institutional Equity and Deputy title IX coordinator forwarded my complaint to an associate investigator under her direct supervision, Mr. Robert Camilleri.
The Complaint was carbon copied to Robert’s other two direct supervisors. Therefore, in my opinion, this plan of attack, in the subsequent events, were made known, and more importantly sanctioned, by his two other directors. In other words, it was the directive from all three of his supervisors.
The following pages contain the OIE’s response that show how the OIE attempted to deceive and manipulate not only the CHRO investigator, but all individuals who fill out an OIE Complaint form related to concerns they were mistreated and were brave enough to seek out the assistance of the Office of Institutional Equity at the University of Connecticut. I will also show how the Office of Institutional Equity intentionally disregarded multiple acts of discrimination. I also believe that the department not only spoiled evidence on several occasions during the investigation, but also facilitated the respondent to do so as well.
At the very beginning of the arbitration process, Mr. Camilleri said to me something to the effect of: “You are fortunate to have come to the OIE which is neutral, unlike human resources which would be primarily concerned with protecting the employee.” I’m sure you will agree with me, upon reviewing all I have been subjected to, nothing could be farther from the truth.
December 11, 2019
The CHRO held its monthly meeting on this date. There must be a repository of public records of the monthly meetings. Each record would have a PDF of the agenda and the second PDF with them meeting minutes. Further, there is over eight years of monthly meeting agendas and minutes. The agenda shows that UConn health was one of the five main topics for the evening. It was directly related to the September 2019 CHRO “advisement” to the OIE.
It is notable that the agenda for the meeting are accessible, but not the minutes. This could be correlated to the September 2019th “advisement” that is no longer accessible, and I could not find it even by using advanced search operators. Eight years equals 96 months, 96 agendas & 96 minutes. If we focus on just the minutes, the probability that this was a random occurrence would be 0.01041. This would mean that the probability that this was not random occurrence would equal 0.99959. The preponderance of evidence standard would require a probability of anything in excess of 0.50. Therefore, I feel that this was an instance of spoilage of evidence.
I contacted the office of institutional equity (September 2019) to remind them of their legal obligation to comply with 46 a – 68 – 89. As you will see when you review the attached response, the OIE provided false misleading information (including by omissions) when they replied by stating that they fully agree with the statute in order to have a complaint be able to seek all forms of legal relief and not be time-barred. They stated the following: our EEO investigators are trained to always advise complaints of their rights to seek legal relief from external civil rights protection agencies. The OIE reinforced their response by citing & including a print out of all the ongoing continuing education training, symposiums, events etc. their EEO investigators have completed. They also responded by saying that they provide a complaint of their rights on the complaint form with a sign and date.
Here is where they are being intentionally misleading to deceive and manipulate the CHRO investigator. Please note the verbiage they used in their response had they claimed that they actually did advise me of my rights immediately following receipt of my complaint, because if they had they would’ve responded with something to the effect of “Our EEO investigators, due to their training and continued education, and we always advise complaints of their rights pursuant to 46 a – 68 – 89”.
If you review the attached copy of the complaint form, it is clearly apparent that it was included in such a manner to be overlooked, especially by someone who would understandably upset as they relived the abuse they felt they received while filling out the complaint form. For example: it is located in an atypical location, not immediately following the segment of a form where the complainant would complete the form by entering their name, then dating it and signing the form. Rather, it is printed in microfiche size fonts, partially obfuscated by dark blue field, which is directly above the area where one would begin filling out the form by entering their name and date. It is also noteworthy that the font here is much larger.
The foregoing was by design. They were banking on the fact that an individual, especially one who is emotionally traumatized by being reminded of the abuse they were subjected to, would be directed by the fact that the first thing individuals do when filling out the form is enter the name address and phone number, and they increase the probability of someone not seeing their microfiche’s sized partially hidden font. Just above it.
I ask you, what is the probability that you think that this form was not intentionally designed to have an emotionally upset complainant not see the line about their rights to seek legal relief from external civil rights protection agencies.
They are immediately drawn to where one would enter their name and address, and they start filling out the form, go to the next page, complete, and signed their name and date it. If there was no subterfuge by the OIE, why did they not printed immediately after where one would sign and date, and be printed with the font which many individuals would not have to purchase a magnifying device to read it?
The OIE is required to regularly report to the CHRO data related to internal complaints of discrimination, discriminatory harassment, retaliation, sexual assault and sexual abuse and all other forms of alleged acts against individuals and protected classes. If you review the attached print out of one of these reports, it shows what they reported to the CHRO regarding my case. They falsely state that they had investigated retaliation and had assessed it on merit. However, I would have never contacted human resources had I not been deceived by the letter I received in January 4th directing me to bring my retaliation in response for whistleblowing concerns to human resources. The foregoing was in their jurisdiction and had they included it in their December 20 “decision” and stated that I had not been retaliated upon, they correctly guessed that I would immediately contact state and federal civil rights protections agencies. This is also directly related to how they refused my requests for review of my concerns under Title IX.
October 28-November 3, 2021
Upon locating the records of the September 2019 CHRO/investigator “Advisement” to the OIE online, on October 28, I emailed Mr. Charles Perry FOI officer of the CHRO. I requested copies of all related documents. Initially, he responded by saying that they had no record of the sore and suggested that I go to another department. I circled back with a copy of the first page of the advisement attached.
Two days later he responded with something to the effect of he checked again and was told that this was just an advisement and that there were no records. It is difficult to understand that there were no emails or phone logs of the same. The CHRO is required to keep adequate records.
A few weeks later, I went to re-download it from the same repository. I could not find it anywhere I was able to find the one before it (January 2019, and some after September 9, 2019 but the one I found earlier seems to disappeared. This is another instance of Spoilage of Evidence.
Erick Diaz vasquez.
Mr. Diaz Vasquez is purposely trying to deceive me with false misleading information including by omissions. In spite of the fact that he and his nom de plume, Ms. Hill, whom he was hiding behind, certainly were well aware that the only concern I brought to Ms. Hills attention was Ms. Ryng noncompliance with UConn Policies, as well as CGS 46 a – 68 – 89 (since I reported discrimination and discriminatory harassment to her).
Because of the foregoing, the statue limitations also ran out for the concerns I reported to her because she did not comply with the statute within its 90-day requirement. Rather, she waited, as directed by her direct supervisor of Mr. Diaz Vasquez, over 180 days until she sent me, on September 25, 2019 the dismissive and fully erroneous email stating that she had done what was required. By doing this, she negated my ability to seek legal relief from the CHRO related to the concerns I bought to her attention. It is also important to know that this was exactly 365 days from when I reported my concerns to the OIE.
The most ludicrous thing is that all I asked of Mr. Camilleri was to fix it, have me reinstated, and get Fostervold to leave me alone. This could be accomplished with a 10- or 15-minute phone call or short visit to the office. I also requested Mr. Camilleri to make some changes even though they should have been aware that their department was acting discriminatory by providing preferential treatment in advanced software training. This resulted in additional responsibilities, increased hours/increased income, additional training and mentorship as required for these new responsibilities, all of this which gave them a competitive edge when applying for new opportunities and promotions in the department, the Health Center or beyond. All I asked was that they ensure that the department heads announce all opportunities to the entire department no matter what their race or gender is.
Also, please look at all they done not to make those changes, but rather choose the dark side of the force in order to “handle this matter”. They were aware that I had filed a complaint with Ms. Hill regarding Shayla Ryng. Any information I gave her regarding Fostervold was just details that she asked me to provide to her regarding what I reported to her in March-April 2019. She confirmed this in several of her emails, which is attached in the Hill. EDV packet.
To deflect from Fostervold and ring Mr. Diaz Vasquez had Ms. Hill conduct and arbitration proceeding which was not within their jurisdiction. Her jurisdiction ended on August 3, 2019 when she forwarded my reported concerns to her to the management of the appropriate department; in this case human resources.
The OIE had recorded that they had assessed the retaliation on merit and had dismissed the reported concern on December 20, 2018.
Mr. Diaz Vasquez, in his response dated January 15, 2021, which Ms. Hill sent out for him falsely represented that it was her and her supervisor Ms. Kathrine Fearney output. In his response, he stated that the retaliation I alleged was related to a Protected Class. Because of this, he was required per article 3 of the University policy against discrimination, harassment, interpersonal violence, gender discrimination, sexual harassment, sexual assault, stalking, complicity complicity retaliation and inappropriate amorous relationships. This required him to forward all my concerns (had they actually been a legitimate arbitration not a false flag) to the OIE.
Conclusion
Had the HR and the Office of Institutional Equity (OIE) complied with the law, I would have had notice of the limited timeframe in which to file an appeal with state or federal civil rights protections agencies such as the CHRO, and EEOC. The HR should also have informed me of my due process rights, including my options to file an appeal on my claims for retaliation for whistleblowing, discrimination and retaliation. Accordingly, I would not have had my CHRO case dismissed because of being time-barred. I would have been just within the 180 days SOL for the CHRO, and well within the 300 days statue limitations for the federal government. It is important to note that just two months later in October 1, 2019, legislation that was previously passed, changed the 180 days to 300 days.
It follows; to any reasonable and unbiased individual, I was absolutely terminated in retaliation for whistleblowing, after being subjected to multiple instances of retaliation by this abusive employee who abused her authority. Human Resources was well aware that the abusive employee had had previous complaints by coworkers of her abusive treatment of coworkers, (and allegedly, was terminated for making a false accusation against a coworker).
From the time I filed my complaint on September 26, 2018, until 14-Jan 2019, when they had remitted their “decision” and soon after refused my request for an appeal (one of which I was entitled to), the OIE only complied their legal requirement to complete their arbitration process within 90 days.
In light of the foregoing, it is evident that the respondents deceived and manipulated me, provided me with false and misleading information (including by omissions), and interfered with pertinent evidence. The respondents also blatantly disregarded University policies (including their own departments’ Complaint Investigation Policies), State and Federal Statutes, and due process rights. They did the foregoing knowingly and willingly in order to cause me harm (with malice), in order to in order to have the statue limitations (especially the EEOC and US Department of Education) expire. Their conduct was motivated by self-serving individuals, who seek career recognition that would lead to career advancements. The respondents also did so in a manner to try to have me be believe that I was being treated fairly and impartially, while in essence, I was treated unfairly.
In light of the foregoing, it would only be just for the respondents to be held liable for their blameworthy conduct as described herein.
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )
