An Ohio University investigator determined that retaliation claims against a journalism professor that were made by one graduate student were unsubstantiated because it could not be proven that the professor retaliated against the student in response to the sexual harassment claim she filed.
Yusuf Kalyango was found on Thursday to have unsubstantiated claims against him for the allegation of retaliation, meaning that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that it was more likely than not that the allegation was true, according to a Memorandum of Findings from the university.
Kalyango was facing a lawsuit and de-tenuring at OU over the sexual harassment allegations that began in September. He is also facing another allegation of sexual harassment that was filed March 21.
Now, in a lawsuit between one graduate student who was allegedly retaliated against and OU, the university disagrees with the allegation that it was deliberately indifferent to her Title IX rights, according to OU’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint filed March 25.
The Post does not name people who report sexual harassment or assault unless they give permission.
The university claims that the complaint failed to allege a plausible claim of retaliation under Title IX.
“This motion is strikingly similar to the motion to dismiss that the university substantially lost in the Hempstead and Adams case,” Athens Attorney Michael Fradin said. “This filing demonstrates that the university continues to be plagued by the same misunderstanding of its responsibilities.”
On March 20, Kalyango filed a cross-claim to the lawsuit filed by the graduate student and Fradin.
He denied the claims of sexual harassment and said he was not given the opportunity to cross-examine or “confront those accusing him,” according to court documents filed by North Canton-based attorney Gregory Beck.
“The net effect of Ohio University’s shoddy investigation, poor organization with respect to the manner in which the investigation was conducted, and basic negligence in conducting the investigation has resulted in significant and potentially irreparable damage to Dr. Kalyango’s professional reputation within the Ohio University academic community and internationally with regard to the global initiatives with which Dr. Kalyango has been associated,” the document reads.
The cross-claim states that OU is in violation of Kalyango’s 14th Amendment rights, which guarantee equal protection under the law and due process.
“My goal at the moment is to clear my name,” Kalyango said in an email.
Correction: A previous version of this report stated that there were two lawsuits. The article has been updated to reflect the most accurate information and to clarify that there are two different ECRC cases.