United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Andrew Kortyna filed this employment discrimination and
retaliation action against Lafayette College, his former
employer. This is the second employment discrimination action
Dr. Kortyna has filed against Lafayette. Both cases stem from
proceedings involving sexual harassment complaints made
against Dr. Kortyna by two female students. Here, Dr. Kortyna
brings claims under Title VII, Title IX, the Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Family Medical
Leave Act (“FMLA”), and state law for wrongful
termination based on “gender stereotyping, ”
disability, and/or his filing a previous employment action.
Lafayette has moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing
that the claims are either precluded or fail to state a
claim. For the reasons stated below, I will grant the motion
in part and deny it in part.
College is a private liberal arts college in Easton,
Pennsylvania that receives federal funding. Dr. Kortyna began
working as a physics professor at Lafayette in September
2001, received tenure in July 2009, and was terminated on
March 31, 2015.
Student Accusations against Dr. Kortyna
September 26, 2013, student HW, a senior at Lafayette, filed
a complaint with Provost Wendy Hill accusing Dr. Kortyna of
sexually harassing her. On October 2, 2013, Provost Hill
telephoned Dr. Kortyna to inform him that a student complaint
had been filed against him.
October 2, 2013, student AB filed a similar complaint of
sexual harassment against Dr. Kortyna. This student is
allegedly a close friend of HW. On October 3, 2013, Provost
Hill called Dr. Kortyna to inform him of the second
complaint. Thereafter, the students amended their complaints,
with the assistance of Provost Hill, to include more detail.
October 7, 2013, Provost Hill gave Dr. Kortyna the
students' complaints. When he asked to respond to the
students' complaints, Provost Hill denied his request.
Provost Hill then interviewed him on October 11, 2013. At
that time, she gave him a longer amended complaint by HW,
which included more specific details. HW's amended
complaint alleged that the plaintiff was “a man who
‘cried, ' exhibited emotion, was ‘lonely,
' ‘strange, ' ‘awkward, ' and
‘disconnected'…” HW's amended
sexual harassment complaint included the following quotes:
• My impression of him was that he was lonely and
disconnected from his family.
• In my mind, Andy was just a strange physics professor
like all the rest, albeit a lonely one who likes to form
close relationships with his students.
• [When she first] joked about not going into
science… [Dr. Kortyna's] eyes tear[ed] up.
• He had a pitiful expression on his face and there were
tears in his eyes.
• What had I done that could make a grown man cry on so
See Am.Compl. ¶ 28.
November 6, 2013, Provost Hill informed Dr. Kortyna that she
had rejected AB's complaint but not HW's complaint.
Over the next two weeks, Provost Hill allegedly
“attempted to force” Dr. Kortyna to agree to be
dismissed from the College. Allegedly, Provost Hill indicated
that Dr. Kortyna's agreement to be dismissed from the
College would halt the investigations against him and would
prevent him from receiving a suspension. Provost Hill
allegedly refused to negotiate alternative terms, and the
plaintiff ultimately rejected her proposal.
December 17, 2013, Provost Hill issued two investigative
reports. One found possible merit in HW's accusations
because Dr. Kortyna confronted HW “with intense and
insistent emotional behavior.” The other report found
that Dr. Kortyna did not harass AB but may have retaliated
against her for filing her complaint, based on an
“apology” he made to her a day or two after she
January 3, 2014, Professor Robert Cohn, Chair of
Lafayette's Appeal and Grievance Committee, informed Dr.
Kortyna that a hearing committee was being formed to address
the two student complaints. On February 3, 2014, Professor
Cohn informed Dr. Kortyna that the Lafayette Hearing
Committee had been formed and the hearing would occur within
twenty-one days. On February 12, 2014, the Lafayette Hearing
Committee informed Dr. Kortyna that the hearing dates were
set for March 5, 2014 and March 6, 2014.
Kortyna's Mental Health Condition
result of the complaints made against him, Dr. Kortyna began
to experience anxiety attacks and bouts of depression. On
October 4, 2013, he suffered an acute anxiety attack. His
physician prescribed him anti-anxiety medication, but Dr.
Kortyna continued to suffer daily anxiety attacks.
October 23, 2013,  Dr. Kortyna suffered a severe anxiety
attack and was prescribed anti-depressant medication by his
physician. Over the next month, Dr. Kortyna continued to have
debilitating attacks, and his medication was increased.
November 27, 2013, Dr. Kortyna began therapy with Robert
Chupella, Ph.D., a psychologist. He was eventually diagnosed
with Major Depressive Disorder, Single Episode, Severe
without Psychotic Features, and Panic Disorder without
January 31, 2014, Dr. Kortyna was evaluated by Kenneth Weiss,
MD, a forensic psychiatrist, who diagnosed depression and
anxiety. In his report dated February 3, 2014, Dr. Weiss
“medically concluded that Plaintiff Kortyna would
‘require legal counsel to be present'” at his
disciplinary hearings as a “reasonable
accommodation” for his “disabilities.”
First Set of Hearings
first hearing on the student complaints began on March 25,
2014. Dr. Kortyna was given a faculty member to serve as his
advisor/counsel during the hearing per the university's
policies and procedures. Prior to this hearing, Dr. Kortyna
requested that his private legal counsel be present at the
hearing as an “accommodation” for his mental
health condition. Lafayette denied this request, but provided
other accommodations. Provost Hill allegedly added “new
charges” at the start of the hearing.
the hearing, HW was called to testify. Dr. Kortyna's
“disabilities prevented him from being able to
cross-examine HW.” He reserved the right to recall her
for cross-examination. On March 26, 2014, he again requested
that his private legal counsel be present at the hearing. On
April 1, 2014, the defendant again denied this request but
offered other accommodations.
April 2, 2014, Dr. Kortyna was admitted to the psychiatric
unit at Lehigh Valley Hospital. On April 7, 2014, Dr. Weiss
issued a second report which reiterated the need for Dr.
Kortyna to have his attorney present at the hearings as a
“reasonable accommodation” for his disability:
In Dr. Kortyna's case, he has developed a severe
condition that has substantially impaired major life
activities . . . To the extent that the cause of his
condition is the proceedings against him, which completely
blindsided him, the appropriate label is Adjustment Disorder,
classified with Trauma and Stressor Related Disorders . . .
With respect to the proceedings in progress, my opinion about
Dr. Kortyna's fitness to undertake them is unchanged.
That is, he is presently incapable of representing his
interest without the presence of legal counsel.
See Am.Compl. ¶ 72.
April 9, 2014, Dr. Kortyna registered a complaint of unlawful
disability discrimination with the Committee, asserting that
the Committee unlawfully failed to accommodate him.
Kortyna's First Federal Action
April 10, 2014, the plaintiff filed an action in this court,
alleging violations of the ADA and Section 504 due to the
defendant's failure to provide him with his requested
“reasonable accommodation” of having his lawyer
present at the hearings. These were the only employment
discrimination claims he alleged. I granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, finding that
the plaintiff was not legally entitled to the relief he
sought. While the motion to dismiss was pending, the hearings
on the student complaints were suspended. Several events
related to Dr. Kortyna's claims in this second action
occurred during this timeframe.
Kortyna's FMLA Leave
April 1, 2014, Dr. Kortyna requested medical leave under the
FMLA. On May 26, 2014, Dr. Chupella emailed Lisa Rex,
Director of Human Resources-Employment, requesting that Dr.
Kortyna be allowed to return from his FMLA leave because he
was now “medically capable of doing so.” Ms. Rex
allegedly never responded. On June 6, 2014, Dr. Kortyna
emailed Ms. Rex and requested she respond to Dr.
Chupella's email. On June 27, 2014, Dr. Kortyna emailed
Ms. Rex yet again, requesting the same. Ms. Rex allegedly did
not respond to either email.
2014, Patricia Lechleitner, an Investigator for the
Department of Labor, began an investigation into
“Defendant's mishandling of Plaintiff Kortyna's
FMLA leave.” On July 31, 2014, Ms. Lechleitner
instructed Lafayette to permit Dr. Kortyna to return to
August 1, 2014, Ms. Rex emailed Dr. Kortyna a formal letter
advising him that he was “restored from FMLA leave back
to [his] full-time position as a Professor.” He was
also advised that the “no contact” order between
him and HW and AB remained in effect. Dr. Kortyna viewed this
“no contact” order as retaliation for his taking
FMLA leave. He filed a complaint with Ms. Rex alleging FMLA
retaliation, but Ms. Rex allegedly did not respond.
Post-Kortyna I Events While Hearings Were Suspended
the hearings were suspended and Dr. Kortyna was on FMLA
leave, the College Physics department sponsored a public
lecture on-campus of an alumnus on May 9, 2014. Dr. Kortyna
and his two student accusers attended the lecture. Halfway
through the lecture, the Physics Department Chair asked Dr.
Kortyna to leave. At the end of the lecture, Dr. Kortyna
stood in the front of the auditorium and told those present
that he was being forced off campus.
10, 2014, Dr. Kortyna received an email informing him that he
was “unequivocally ‘banned' from the
defendant's campus due to the events from the previous
day.” On May 30, 2014, Dr. Kortyna emailed Alison
Byerly, Ph.D., the President of Lafayette, requesting access
to his laboratory and office. She denied his request on June
1, 2014. On July 7, 2014, Dr. Kortyna emailed Dr. Byerly,
“requesting that she lift Defendant's retaliatory
ban and allow him to return to campus.” She allegedly
did not respond.
Dr. Kortyna returned from his FMLA leave, Professor Eric
Ziolkowski (the new chair of the Hearing Committee) informed
the plaintiff that the hearings would begin again in
September. On September 1, 2014, Professors George Panichas
and James Wooley met with Acting Provost Cohn to try to
negotiate settlement on behalf of Dr. Kortyna. Provost
Cohn-who was involved in the initial hearings-allegedly said
that he did not believe the plaintiff violated the
defendant's sexual harassment policy “but that [the
plaintiff] should still be punished with at least a
substantial suspension…because [he] cried in front of
the students.” On September 3, 2014 and September 16,
2014, Dr. Kortyna again requested that his attorney be
present at the hearings. On September 16, 2014, he asked for
further information of other complaints HW and AB had made
against other faculty members, but was again denied this
September 17, 2014, the Committee allegedly levied
“new, previously-undisclosed charges” of sexual
harassment and retaliation against the plaintiff, including
an allegation of retaliation related to the May 9, 2014
lecture. On September 19, 2014, Dr. Kortyna objected to the
new charges, but was overruled by the Committee.
September 19, 2016, I dismissed with prejudice Dr.
Kortyna's complaint regarding his ADA claim and request
for counsel at his hearing as a “reasonable
accommodation.” On September 24, 2016, Dr. Kortyna
again requested that he be permitted private counsel at the
hearing as a “reasonable accommodation for his
disabilities.” The Committee refused to provide this
accommodation. However, the Committee did permit
plaintiff's counsel to be on site for the hearings and
even worked to accommodate the plaintiff's counsel's
Continuation of the Hearings on Sexual Harassment Charges
September 29, 2016, the hearing recommenced. HW refused to
appear to testify a second time. She had graduated from the
College the previous spring. Dr. Kortyna objected to the fact
that she would not be available for cross-examination. The
Committee allegedly “abruptly changed the rules
governing the questioning of witnesses.” The Committee
also did not allow Dr. Kortyna to call himself as a witness.
It also did not allow Dr. Kortyna to call his psychologist
Dr. Chupella to testify “to the effect of
Plaintiff' Kortyna's disabilities on actions that
were deemed retaliatory by Defendant.” The hearings
continued on October 7, 10, 20, 21, and 27, 2014 regarding
the charges brought by both HW and AB. According to the
plaintiff, “no witness provided any evidence that would
support HW and AB's charges of sexual harassment and
retaliation-under the standards imposed by the Faculty
Handbook-against Plaintiff Kortyna.”
Hearing Committee's Report and Findings
Report Regarding HW
November 3, 2014, the Committee issued a report with its
findings and recommendations regarding HW's charges,
addressed to President Byerly. The Committee outlined the
timeline of proceedings and the evidence it considered. The
Committee found that there was no evidence that “any
actual sexual contact occurred between Professor Kortyna and
Ms. HW.” However, the Committee also found that Dr.
Kortyna had violated the College's sexual harassment and
retaliation policies regarding “hostile
environment” (B.18.104.22.168), “the special
relationship between faculty and student” (B2.2.2), and
“intimidation and retaliation”
(B.22.214.171.124). The Committee based its findings on
“written communications from Professor Kortyna and Ms.
HW as well as documented personal interactions [that] could
subjectively and reasonably have been perceived by her as
unwelcome expressions of a romantic or implicitly sexual
nature (viz. FH B.2.2.1), to the point that it gave rise to
what she could have reasonably perceived as a ‘hostile
environment […] permeated with discriminatory
intimidation […and] offensiveness' to the extent
of ‘interfer[ing] with [Ms. HW's] academic or work
performance' (FN B.126.96.36.199). The Committee considered Dr.
Kortyna's “use of intimate and emotive
language” in his communications with HW, along with Dr.
Kortyna's testimony that he perceived HW as having
“always been a little bit flirtatious” such that
he “felt there was a sexual tension from very
early. The Committee also pointed out that
certain actions by Dr. Kortyna could have been perceived by
the student as “romantic” (e.g., voluntarily
driving her alone sixty miles from Easton to Newark Airport,
and hugging her on multiple occasions), especially given his
use of “intimate” language.
Committee further found that Dr. Kortyna “spoke and
acted in ways that violated the ‘special relationship
between a faculty member and a student' (FH
B.2.2.2).” Id. at 10. The Committee cited
evidence that HW had made it clear to Dr. Kortyna that she
was uncomfortable with how he framed their teacher-student
relationship as being more than an academic-professional one.
The Committee also noted one instance in which Dr. Kortyna
became upset with HW but then told her “he was still
willing to write recommendation letters” for her.
Id. at 11.
the Committee discussed evidence of retaliation by Dr.
Kortyna against HW for filing her complaint. In an email
titled “Gentlemen: discussion and free food!” in
February 2014, he wrote to six other colleagues in the
Physics department about the sexual harassment complaint and
pending proceedings; he specifically named HW and told them
that she was “currently attempting to have [him]
dismissed from the College.” Id. at 12. The
Committee took issue with this email because it falsely
indicated that HW had proposed sanctions against him and also
that this jeopardized HW's relationship with other
members of the faculty of her major with whom she would have
to work and by whom she would be evaluated. They voiced
concerns about Dr. Kortyna's breach of the
confidentiality of the investigation and pending proceeding.
Committee also discussed the May 9th Physics Department
lecture, which Dr. Kortyna attended while on FMLA leave.
“As attested by multiple witnesses, and disputed by
none, following [the] lecture Professor Kortyna stood near
the front and exclaimed to everyone present that he was being
dismissed from or ‘thrown off' or ‘kicked
off' campus.” Id. at 13. The Committee
considered this act, especially in light of the previous
email to colleagues, to be “brazenly
retaliatory.” Id. The Committee also noted
that HW was present in the front rows of the auditorium in
which the lecture was held.
to this event, Dr. Kortyna had been advised not to have
contact with HW and AB. Though the Committee could not
determine that Dr. Kortyna's presence at the event
violated the no-contact orders in place, they expressed
concern over Dr. Kortyna's judgment in attending and also
moderating a Q&A after the lecture, given the
Committee also cited two emails sent to HW by Dr.
Kortyna's attorney, which it considered clear forms of
intimidation. In one sent on January 27, 2014, David
Ferleger, plaintiff's attorney in the first federal
action, identified himself as the plaintiff's lawyer and
requested that she meet with him “regarding [her]
potential testimony.” Mr. Ferleger also
“encourage[ed her] to thoughtfully consider a positive
response to this invitation.” Id. at 14. The
Committee considered this email to be a clear act of
retaliation, intended to put HW in fear.
April 26, 2014, while the hearing was suspended because the
plaintiff was on FMLA leave and after the first federal
action regarding the plaintiff's right to have an
attorney present at the hearing had been filed, Mr. Ferleger
again contacted HW by email. The April email reiterated the
points of the previous email and also suggested that she had
“defamed” Dr. Kortyna and that there may be
“impending litigation.” He advised her to contact
her attorney before responding. The Committee considered
this email to be a clear act of retaliation and a violation
of the March no-contact Order, which indicated that neither
the plaintiff nor his “intermediary” shall
contact HW in person or by email.
making its findings, the Committee recommended a two-year,
unpaid suspension as a sanction and a ban from campus during
this time period. The Committee stated that Dr.
Kortyna's lawsuit “was an appeal to the federal
court system to interfere with the College process, and to
insist that Professor Kortyna's outside counsel be
permitted to participate in the Hearings [demonstrating] both
Professor Kortyna's and Mr. Ferleger's disregard for
the College Hearing Committee and process.”
Committee also viewed the plaintiff's
“repeated…attempts during the late Spring and
Summer of 2014 to file a complaint of sexual harassment
against [HW and AB] to the Student Conduct Committee”
as “retaliation” against those students. They
indicated that Dr. Kortyna used and/or abused his FMLA leave
privileges by “subvert[ing] and complicat[ing] the
Defendant's investigation” while also trying to
institute new proceedings against the students through the
filing of his own sexual harassment complaints against them.
Report Regarding AB
November 19, 2014, the Committee issued a report with its
findings and recommendations regarding AB, again addressed to
President Byerly. The Committee outlined the timeline of
proceedings and the evidence it considered. The Committee
found that “the preponderance of the evidence indicates
that Professor Kortyna violated [the College's sexual
harassment retaliation policy] in multiple ways and in
multiple instances” in violation of Faculty Handbook
Appendix B.2.2.1 and B.188.8.131.52. While the Committee found
AB's sexual harassment complaint to be meritless, it also
found the complaint was filed in good faith. Id. at
Committee described several incidents in which it appears Dr.
Kortyna was acting in retaliation for AB's filing her
complaint. The first occurred on October 4, 2013, the day she
filed the complaint. Dr. Kortyna's sought out AB in
person and, while crying, apologized to her. He then told her
that he was “probably going to get fired for
this.” After hearing Dr. Kortyna's
testimony on the incident, the Committee viewed it as one
meant to provoke guilt in AB. The Committee noted that it did
have such an effect. AB wrote Provost Hill on the night of
October 4, 2013 saying that “she felt distraught and
guilty and considered telling Professor Kortyna ‘it was
okay and not to worry about what happened.'”
Id. at 8. The Committee also took issue with the
fact that Dr. Kortyna contacted AB after being explicitly
instructed not to do so by Provost Hill on October 3, 2013.
second incident was the May 9th lecture, during
which Dr. Kortyna stood up in an auditorium of students,
“announced that he was being thrown off campus, and
then stormed out of the hall.” Id. at 10-14.
AB was present at this lecture and left the event
“crying.” She indicated that other faculty
members associated the event with her and expressed implied
disapproval towards her. The Committee cited to evidence,
which supports her interpretation of events, and viewed this
May 9th incident as retaliatory.
the Committee discussed two emails sent by Dr. Kortyna's
attorney after AB had filed her charge against him.
Id. at 14-17. Though Dr. Kortyna claims he did not
ask his lawyer to send them, both emails indicate that Dr.
Kortyna's lawyer was doing so as part of his
representation of Dr. Kortyna in his first federal action.
The first email sent on January 27, 2014 requested that AB
meet with the attorney to discuss her potential testimony at
the hearing on her harassment complaint.
second email was sent on June 30, 2014, after the hearing had
commenced and then been suspended, and while Dr. Kortyna was
on FMLA leave. It was sent after the Associate Director of
Public Safety James Meyer had read aloud the
“Prohibition from Contact Notice” to Dr. Kortyna,
informing him that neither he nor his agents should contact
AB. The email warned: “Please refrain from repeating
your accusations [to other faculty members]. You are at risk
of being held responsible for doing so.” The email also
stated that “[her] accusation of sexual harassment was
false” and that “the Provost did not accept it
for forwarding for a hearing.” AB did not understand
the basis for the email. The email “completely
panicked” her. The Committee noted that this email was
sent on the night that Provost Hill was stepping down from
her position; they considered this timing (especially
considering its reference to the Provost) to
“exacerbate the extremely intimidating effect that
this message must have had on Ms. AB.”
Committee then discussed at length Dr. Kortyna's attempts
during late Spring and Summer of 2014, while the hearing on
complaints against him was suspended, to file sexual
harassment complaints against AB and HW. The Committee
explained that Dr. Kortyna made a complaint to the Student
Conduct Committee. He called for the two students'
permanent expulsion from the College because they had filed
sexual harassment complaints against him. He attached
confidential documents related to the proceedings on the
students' sexual harassment charges against him to his
SCC complaints against AB and HW.
14, 2014, Dr. Kortyna sent a memo to Dean D'Agostino,
Dean McLoughlin, Mr. Greg Meyer, and Professor Jennifer Kelly
asking that the SCC proceedings against the two students be
started “immediately.” In a follow-up email on
May 22, 2014, Dr. Kortyna requested “verification that
the complaint [i.e., the SCC complaint he had tried to file
through those same recipients six days earlier] has been
transmitted to [AB and HW].” On May 23, 2014, Dr.
Kortyna emailed Dean McLoughlin that he was “await[ing]
verification that this complaint has been transmitted to [AB
and HW].” Id. at 17-18. The Committee noted
how the transmission of Dr. Kortyna's SCC complaints to
AB and HW appeared to be another way for him to subvert the
“no contact” order with the students. It found
these actions to be retaliatory, especially considering Dr.
Kortyna's testimony that he was “angry” about
the May 9thincident at the lecture.
the Committee outlined several interactions Dr. Kortyna had
with persons related to AB involving disparaging remarks.
AB's supervisor at a local coffee shop testified that Dr.
Kortyna had made unsolicited disparaging remarks to him about
AB's grades during the early summer of 2014. The
Committee noted how Dr. Kortyna's attorney contacted
AB's roommate during the 2013-14 school year, requesting
information about AB's complaints. The roommate
testified, in light of this conversation with Dr.
Kortyna's attorney: “[I] realized that I did not
know the whole story. And I felt like I was being unfair to
not continue the relationship I'd had with Andy
[…] So I went to see how he was doing…He was
very emotionally hurt by it.” Id. at 21. In
April, Dr. Kortyna's attorney again contacted AB's
roommate to “relate an update about the trial.”
Id. at 22. After the May 9th incident,
Dr. Kortyna had also emailed the roommate and indicated that
AB was the one trying to get him removed. In another email
exchange, he told the roommate “AB is trying to use you
to have me dismissed from the college.” Id.
testified that other physics majors and professors made
remarks, which could be construed as related to her
complaints against Dr. Kortyna. Id. Another female
physics major told her Dr. Kortyna “jokingly”
remarked that he hoped the other female student would not
file a harassment complaint against him. Id. That
same student told AB (via a Facebook message) that
Dr. Kortyna told her that “AB and HW have been
spreading lies about me.” Id. The Committee
also cited statements made by close friends of HW and AB that
Dr. Kortyna told them they “would regret filing [their
complaints]” and that “he would come after [them]
personally with a lawsuit.” Id.
Committee noted that AB considered transferring to another
university in Spring 2013 and has trouble trusting other
professors as a result of her interactions with Dr. Kortyna.
the Committee considered these incidents to be “grav[e]
and persisten[t]” acts of retaliation and intimidation
in violation of Faculty Handbook Appendix B.2.1 and
B.184.108.40.206, the Committee recommended that Dr. Kortyna be
“permanently separated from the College, effective
immediately.” Id. at 23-24.
Hearing Review Committee's Findings
Kortyna objected to the Committee's findings and
recommendations. He appealed for review of its reports by a
Hearing Review Committee, per the College's prescribed
procedures. Dr. Kortyna submitted a list of procedural errors
to the Review Committee on both reports.
November 26, 2014, the Hearing Review Committee issued its
report related to HW to President Byerly. See
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Doc. No. 22, Ex. 7 (filed
under seal). The Hearing Review Committee found that Dr.
Kortyna's inability to cross-examine HW in violation of
Faculty Handbook B.3.10 was immaterial and other changes in
the procedure regarding calling witnesses also did not affect
the outcome of the hearing. The Review Committee dismissed
Dr. Kortyna's claim that the Committee's
consideration of acts of retaliation without new formal
charges against him being filed was improper, explaining that
requiring a separate charge for each retaliatory act would
cause “an endless cycle of investigations.”
Id. at 3. The Review Committee agreed with Dr.
Kortyna that the evidence of his “outburst” at
the May 9th lecture was non-germane evidence
because he was given permission in October 2013 to attend the
lecture and his remarks at the event were not directed at
anyone specifically. Id. at 3.
Review Committee agreed, to some extent, that the sanctions
against Dr. Kortyna as to HW were too harsh and not
consistent with the factual findings. It recommended similar
sanctions but reduced the amount of time on suspension and
recommended Dr. Kortyna not be banned from campus during the
suspension. Id. at 3-4.
December 17, 2014, the Hearing Review Committee issued its
report regarding AB's case to President Byerly.
See Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Doc. No. 22,
Ex. 8 (filed under seal). The Review Committee offered the
same observations about the hearing, as it explained in
HW's report, regarding procedural errors. However, unlike
the report on HW, it found that the “sanction of
separation from the College…is consistent with the
factual findings of the [Hearing Committee.]”
Id. at 5.
the Review Committee ultimately recommended that the two-year
recommended suspension for HW's charges should be reduced
to six months but also upheld the Committee's
recommendation to terminate Dr. Kortyna based on actions
taken towards ...