I am writing regarding the article that was published in the Daily Orange on 7 September 2015 by Annie Palmer (erroneously) titled “Fired SU professor accuses former human resources head, VPA employees of disability discrimination in lawsuit.” While I admire Ms. Palmer’s ambition in taking on such a complex and nuanced topic, the article – even the title – is filled with erroneous information and much of the information presented misrepresents the reality of the situation. For clarity, I will structure the discrepancies in list form:

1. I never accused the “former head of human resources” of any discriminatory action.

I plan to depose Dr. Kal Alston, Ph.D., a former member of the Chancellor’s Cabinet and “Senior Head of Human Capital” for the University, who was in charge of overseeing compliance with Federal, State, and Local labor and employment laws. She has “returned to teaching,” but Dr. Alston was associated with what is now called “Equal Opportunity, Inclusion, and Resolution Services.” I have, yes, claimed that Dr. Alston was aware of overt discriminatory action, and did nothing to stop it. Given her job at the time, this makes her culpable of violating Federal, State, and Local labor and employment laws for failing to ensure that SU complied with these statutes.

2. Ms. Palmer states, in a correction: “Court records show that for five months, both parties entered mediation in an attempt to possibly settle the suit out of court. In July, the parties terminated mediation. Fowler said this was because the parties couldn’t agree on a financial settlement.” Everyone in the legal community – even outside of Syracuse – is well aware of the fact that SU does not willingly engage in settlement negotiations. I met with their lawyers on one day, 13 July 2015, per Court-ordered mediation, for three hours, with a Court-appointed Federal Mediator. I made an offer, they made an unacceptable counter-offer, I knew, and the mediator confirmed, that this was going to go nowhere, so instead of wasting time and energy, I rejected their counter-offer, and moved onto the pre-trial phase of litigation. I have met with their lawyers for procedural meetings, but there was exactly one meeting where a possible settlement was discussed, and I was the one who broke off negotiations, per my own instincts and the advice of my court-appointed pro bono mediation lawyer.

3. “Fowler … claims that SU used her leaves of absence from 2008-2009 and 2010-2011 against her when evaluating her for tenure and continued employment.” These “leaves of absences” were university-approved parental leaves, which resulted in a one-course reduction in teaching load and the stoppage of my tenure clock. This seems to suggest that I was taking entire academic years off, when in fact I was accomplishing, while my clock was stopped, more than most of my tenured colleagues. They were not, as Ms. Palmer states, leaves of absence, and many faculty members at Syracuse University take parental leave due to the birth or adoption of a child.

4. “This led her to believe SU violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York Human Rights Act and a section of the Civil Rights Act dealing with pregnancy discrimination.” This, in conjunction with the previous sentence, is factually inaccurate and misleading. What “led [me] to believe” that SU violated these laws was the fact that I was “on-track” for tenure until I became disabled, at which point, with no warning, I was terminated by my Department via falsified and manipulated information. I was given two merit raises for by my Department Chair and Dean the two years prior to the year I was terminated, and had always received unanimous votes in favor of proceeding towards tenure.

In October 2011, a bone spur in my C7-T1 spinal joint began pressing on a nerve, and I became temporarily disabled. I had surgery in March of 2012, and although I had a surgeon cutting into my spinal column, I missed only four classes (the following week was Spring Break) because I was afraid my Department would penalize me. I was granted a University-approved clock stoppage and one course reduction due to my disability, and although they were not allowed to evaluate nor assess my job performance during this period, hence the definition of a “clock stoppage,” my job performance – during the time that exactly overlapped with the time I was disabled – became so abhorrent that they suddenly voted to terminate my tenure-track position. This is what “led me to believe” that SU had violated Federal, State, and Local laws regarding disability and pregnancy discrimination, because not only were my previous parental leaves discussed pejoratively at this time, but my medical leave, which is designed to protect faculty who become ill or disabled, was used against me by a Department filled with unethical, unsympathetic, and ignorant faculty members.

5. The Federal Magistrate Judge ordered that Interrogatories and Requests for Documents, part of the pre-trial process, be exchanged on 31 August 2015, and then each party has 30 days to produce the information requested. I submitted my information on time; the University asked for a two-week extension. Ms. Palmer’s dates are simply wrong.

6. The information Ms. Palmer cites from the 2009 study by the Harvard Law and Policy Review are also extremely misleading. This data is for cases that actually go to trial: statistically, less than 2% of Federal Claims go to trial. If I am not able to reach an amenable settlement agreement with SU, the Federal Magistrate Judge, especially in our Federal District, which is a “congested Federal District,” can order us into a “Settlement Conference.” The information that Ms. Palmer states does not apply to my case: civil cases in the Northern Federal District of New York have a 98% chance of settling before trial, and it is in the Court’s best interest for them to do so, as trials are expensive and utilize valuable resources. Placing this information at the end of the article not only suggested that had my case any merit it would have already settled, but also misrepresented the entire process leading up to a Federal trial, which is filled with “safeguards,” so to speak, to prevent cases from ever getting to this phase.

7. I am “representing myself,” a phrase Ms. Palmer dropped in her article with no explanation, again not because my case does not have merit, but because the cost of Federal litigation is prohibitively expensive. In order to proceed with a Federal Trial, it is typical for attorneys to require a $30,000 retainer, money which I did not have, and most lawyers for Federal cases, especially those in Upstate New York, do not work on contingency, which is why I am a pro se litigant, representing myself. Universities and other institutions know that taking legal action for discriminatory employment practices is a time consuming process and extremely expensive, as well as emotionally wrenching, so it is a calculated risk on their behalf, one that pays off most of the time, in that an employee who is discriminated against will not pursue legal action. If I did not have indisputable evidence that the individuals named in the article willfully and knowingly broke Federal, State, and Local laws, I would be foolish to put myself through this ordeal.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth J. Fowler, Ph.D.

Published on September 16, 2015 at 12:24 am