SDBOR to pay $100,000 to former USD employee in discrimination lawsuit

On By Vaseline

The South Dakota Board of Regents recently agreed to pay a former international student advisor at the University of South Dakota $100,000 to settle a lawsuit she filed, alleging sexual harassment, sex discrimination and retaliation.

Semehar Ghebrekidan worked in the International Office at USD in her role for less than a year – from July 9, 2018 to June 21, 2019 – before she was placed on administrative leave and her contract was not renewed after she reported incidents of sexual abuse. office harassment and filed a Title IX complaint, according to her original complaint.

The plea agreement and release, obtained by Frida by the Argus Leader and first reported earlier this week by The Dakota Scout, details that Ghebrekidan received a check from SDBOR for $10,307.10 for wages with $2,390.40 in taxes withheld for a net payroll payment of $7,916.70, and a check from SDBOR for $64,757.70 for non-wages.

Her counsel at the Boyce Law Firm received a check from SDBOR in the amount of $24,935.20 for attorney fees.

The release releases the plaintiff, Ghebrekidan, USD and the SDBOR from what it sued them for, and that it will not sue or complain against USD or the SDBOR in the future for claims that arose before the execution of the settlement agreement. and let go.

“Accordingly, without any admission of liability, the parties have reached this agreement and compromise after considering the significant expense and uncertainty of future litigation, trials and appeals, and with the desire to resolve all pending or potential litigation and administrative matters in their entirety to solve. ,” states the plea agreement and release, dated Feb. 13.

First complaint of sex discrimination

Ghebrekidan names two people in the lawsuit: Susan Hackemer, then director of the international office at USD and now assistant vice president for career services and student success; and Patrick Morrison, then deputy director of the international office and now director of the Gallagher International Center, which oversees study abroad, international admissions and international student services.

Neither Hackemer nor Morrison responded to emails from the Argus Leader seeking comment.

In her initial complaint, Ghebrekidan alleges that Morrison “was party to a conversation in which Semehar was degraded and stereotyped as a ‘whore,’” according to court documents.

Ghebrekidan alleged in her lawsuit that on or about December 10, 2018, international office secretary Patty Lase told Ghebrekidan in a conversation with an international student about modesty that Ghebrekidan sometimes “wears those super short skirts and tights, and I get the ‘Me Too’ movement and all that, but sometimes you just ask for it.

Lase did not respond to messages from the Argus Leader.

Ghebrekidan said she interpreted the comments to mean she was “asking” to be sexually assaulted because of her outfit, according to court documents.

The next day, Ghebrekidan said she overheard Morrison and Lase talking about the way Ghebrekidan was acting and dressing in the office, with Lase stating that Ghebrekidan had “dressed like a whore,” according to Ghebrekidan’s complaint. Lase also said Ghebrekidan’s hugging an international student was “culturally insensitive,” according to the complaint.

“Rather than address Lase’s inappropriate and derogatory comments, Morrison responded by saying he would talk to (Ghebrekidan) about the way she dressed and behaved,” Ghebrekidan’s complaint said.

The next day, Ghebrekidan reported the conversation she overheard to Khara Iverson, then the Title IX coordinator at USD, who suggested that Ghebrekidan discuss the situation individually with Morrison.

The next day, Ghebrekidan spoke to Morrison about the conversation, who told her that hugging was not “culturally acceptable,” and that the rest of the employees in the office were “Midwestern and white” and had a different view of what was culturally normal. then Ghebrekidan, according to the complaint. Ghebrekidan grew up in a traditional Ethiopian household with parents who both immigrated to the US

Ghebrekidan asked Morrison if he wanted her to ignore her culture as someone who is Ethiopian and a person of color, and Morrison responded that “she needs to ‘make adjustments,’” according to the complaint. Ghebrekidan asked if a student ever felt uncomfortable or disrespected because of her hugs, and Morrison said no, the complaint said.

Two days later, Lase left a voicemail with Ghebrekidan in which she attempted to apologize for Ghebrekidan overhearing the conversation she had with Morrison, the complaint said.

Ghebrekidan requested another office location, but this was denied. In her complaint, she alleges that USD, Morrison and Hackemer have refused to take corrective action against Lase for these incidents.

Retaliation complaint

Ghebrekidan requested that Morrison conduct her six-month review on Jan. 11, 2019, but Morrison postponed it until Feb. 24, 2019, according to Ghebrekidan’s complaint.

While in the office, Ghebrekidan continually sought feedback from Morrison and was told she was doing the right things, Ghebrekidan states in her complaint, but despite Morrison’s earlier reassurances, Ghebrekidan was told in the evaluation that she was not meeting two of the four labor categories. , and was placed on a 60-day improvement plan.

Several days later, Ghebrekidan requested that her informal Title IX investigation be escalated to a formal investigation.

Ghebrekidan sought feedback from Morrison and Hackemer during the 60-day plan, but received little to no response after the initial review about her status or how to move forward, she alleges in her complaint.

On April 12, 2019, Ghebrekidan’s Title IX investigation was closed due to lack of substantial evidence, according to her complaint.

Ten days later, she met with Morrison, who told her she had improved her 60-day plan and that he would speak with Carl Gutzman of USD’s human resources department about the next steps in her plan, according to Ghebrekidan’s complaint.

On May 14, 2019, Hackemer gave Ghebrekidan a memorandum informing her that she was being placed on administrative leave and that her contract would not be renewed because Hackemer said Ghebrekidan had not made progress on the 60-day plan, according to Ghebrekidan’s complaint.

Ghebrekidan claims that the delay in conducting her evaluation, her being placed on a 60-day plan and administrative leave, and her contract not being renewed were all done in retaliation for her pursuing a Title IX investigation.

She also stated in her complaint that as a result of the defendants’ unlawful conduct, Ghebrekidan “suffered and continues to suffer loss of income and benefits, out-of-pocket expenses, emotional distress, mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment and damage to reputation. , loss of earning capacity and other damages that must be compensated through damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

What happened next

In a joint response filed on February 15, 2022, SDBOR, Morrison and Hackemer stated that they denied most of the allegations in Ghebrekidan’s complaint, but admitted that the conversation between Lase and Morrison occurred, and that Ghebrekidan spoke to Morrison about the conversation he had had conducted. had with Lase for example.

The joint response also challenges the reason why Ghebrekidan’s Title IX complaint was closed, stating that it was determined that there was no reasonable basis to believe that she had been a victim of retaliation or harassment, and that Ghebrekidan did not appeal this decision appealed.

Ghebrekidan’s contract was not renewed due to insufficient performance, the joint response said.

“Any employment decision made by Defendants with respect to (the) Plaintiff was based on legitimate, business-related decisions and not on discriminatory or retaliatory reasons,” the joint response said.

On June 1, 2022, both parties moved to dismiss the lawsuit’s Title IX claims against Morrison and Hackemer, which was granted by U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier on June 2, 2022.

Between September 12, 2022 and December 13, 2023, multiple motions and orders were filed to modify the scheduling orders as the parties had scheduled mediation for January 2024 and discovery needed to begin in time to be completed by April 30.

The parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the lawsuit on February 22, and Schreier filed a judgment and order dismissing the case on April 8.