Records reveal additional sexual harassment, misconduct cases at Sonoma State involving campus employees

California State University this week released records summarizing dozens of additional cases involving substantiated complaints of sexual harassment and other misconduct by employees of the nation’s largest four-year public college system.

Sonoma State University accounted for three of 54 cases at a dozen campuses where faculty and other non-management staff were found to have violated sexual harassment and discrimination policies between 2017 and 2021.

Six other campuses reportedly had no such instances, and records from the five remaining schools in the 23-campus system are forthcoming. The summaries were released in response to a records request by education news nonprofit EdSource, which is partnering with The Press Democrat on records related to Sonoma State University.

Sonoma State University and other CSU campuses have been under scrutiny for alleged mishandling of sexual harassment and retaliation complaints and giving millions of dollars in payouts or alternative employment to executives resigning as a result.

EdSource made its May request for the records following months of controversy and scrutiny of the CSU system spurred by a USA TODAY investigation into former Chancellor Joseph Castro’s handling of sexual harassment, bullying and retaliation accusations against a senior Fresno State administrator while he was president of the university.

In April, then-SSU President Judy Sakaki became embroiled in her own scandal after The Press Democrat reported on a $600,000 CSU settlement with a former Sonoma State provost who reported employee complaints of alleged sexual harassment by Sakaki’s husband, education lobbyist Patrick McCallum. Sakaki, who had led the Rohnert Park campus since 2016, resigned last month under pressure from faculty, students and state lawmakers.

Sonoma State is now one of three campuses targeted in an independent state audit looking at CSU’s handling of sexual harassment reports.

The new records provide a window into how those investigations have played out when a university affirms allegations that fall under Title IX, the federal law that prohibits discrimination and harassment on the basis of sex in educational settings that receive federal funds.

In one SSU investigation that took 286 days, a heavy equipment operator and bus driver was found to have made “multiple inappropriate comments that constituted sexual harassment” in January 2019. He was counseled on appropriate behavior and workplace policies. He is still employed at SSU, and there have been no new complaints against him, according to the university.

In the second case, an athletic trainer “engaged in unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature, which was found to have created a hostile environment” between June 2019 and February 2020. His appointment was not renewed, and he moved on to work as an assistant strength and conditioning coach at an out-of-state university a little over a year later.

In the third instance, a student adviser in disability services was found “responsible for sexual misconduct (not sexual harassment)” and “engaged in sexual activity without complainant’s affirmative consent” on Sept. 19, 2020. According to records, the accused employee left the university before the investigation, which took 148 days, concluded in February 2021.

Despite substantiated claims, no information about the investigations was passed on to potential or new employers from the Title IX or Human Resources offices when staff in question left the university, according to SSU spokesperson Robert Eyler.

The university did not have a response as to why information was not provided in these particular cases by the time of publication.

The Press Democrat did not name the subjects of the investigations, given the limited detail available on the circumstances and facts of the complaints and given that the respondents were non-management employees. The individuals did not respond to multiple attempts to reach them.

The Press Democrat has requested more detailed public records connected to the three cases.

The complaints that spurred the investigations were made by staff or faculty, according to the summaries. Investigations varied in nature and outcome, but all three took months to conclude — close to five months in the shortest instance and more than nine months in the longest.

There are no mandated deadlines or time frames for Title IX investigations, and they generally vary widely in length, but CSU’s guidelines aim to provide a final report to the parties within 100 working days from the date of the notice of investigation.

Many factors affect how long an investigation takes, including evidence gathering and availability and responsiveness of the involved parties and witnesses, according to SSU Title IX officer Julie Vivas.

“In order to provide due process to all parties, we need to make sure that we commit ourselves to follow our policies and processes, and at times, that's going to mean extending those timelines in order to make sure that we're doing a thorough job,” she said, noting that when timelines are exceeded policy dictates keeping parties informed.

“Whether you are in the complainant’s shoes or the respondent’s shoes ... It's a hard time for people going through these processes. That being said, we want to make sure that we are giving our all and our best to both of those parties to make sure that they've been heard and that we've processed it fairly.”

Vivas, who started at the university in February, was not involved in the investigations summarized in the newly released records.

The application and effectiveness of protections under Title IX, the landmark civil rights law, have become a point of contention as scandals over the handling of sexual harassment have rocked universities.

While campuses have different cultures governing how they respond to Title IX complaints, experts point out that schools’ systems are often set up to protect the institution from liability rather than students and staff from alleged sexual harassment and misconduct.

Of note, the newly released records only describe cases with substantiated allegations of misconduct, which experts say can be a difficult threshold to meet in the first place, especially since the bar for federal regulations on what constitutes sexual harassment was raised in 2020.

In addition to Sonoma State, the investigation ordered by state legislators into CSU’s sexual misconduct policies and processes will focus on Fresno State and San Jose State, which have had recent reckonings of their own.

In the wake of revelations at SSU, Sakaki separated from McCallum and lost a no-confidence vote of the SSU Academic Senate before announcing her resignation, effective July 31. She denied the retaliation claims and McCallum has denied acting with sexual intent and apologized for what he called “gregarious” behavior.

Sakaki is set to move into a yearlong administrative role with a $254,438 salary before transitioning to a faculty position.

Ming-Tung “Mike” Lee, a longtime Sacramento State administrator, assumed leadership of SSU on Monday. He was appointed as interim president for the 2022-23 academic year while the CSU Board of Trustees searches for a permanent replacement. He was not available for comment, according to Eyler.

“Moving forward as a university, one of our biggest things that we are looking at focusing on is strengthening training, outreach and communication,” Vivas said.

SSU currently has standard training for everyone on campus and different online modules. “We are looking at what we can do to enhance those trainings...In order to make Title IX work, a lot of offices need to work together, so it is a collaboration between a number of partners on and off campus.”

“I’m excited to be at a university at a time when we can look at what our best practices should be,” Vivas said.

You can reach Staff Writer Marisa Endicott at 707-521-5470 or marisa.endicott@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @InYourCornerTPD and Facebook @InYourCornerTPD.