INVESTIGATIVE REPORT

To: Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources

From: S. Diane Irving

Date: May 4, 2023

RE: Sexual Harassment Complaint HRSS 22-23 019

Tamara Muchiarone / Camel Smith

Background

On April 13, 2023, Tamara Muchiarone (hereinafter "Complainant") reported to the

Human Resources Department that they have been subjected to sexual harassment by Camel Smith
(hereinafter "Respondent") in violation of Board Policy AC The District received a Formal
Complaint on April 17, 2023 requesting that the District investigate the allegations. The Formal
Complaint is contained in the Evidence Packet as Exhibit 1.

On April 19, 2023, prior to conducting any interviews, the District provided the
Complainant and Respondent with written notice of the complaint. The Written Notice of
Complaint is contained in the Evidence Packet as Exhibit 2.

The Acting Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources assigned the investigation to S.

Diane Irving who proceeded with an investigation.

Jurisdiction

Because the Formal Complaint alleges incidents that occurred on school property and
school-sponsored events the District has jurisdiction to investigate this matter pursuant to Board
Policy AC.

Summary of the Allegations Investigated

The Complainant alleges: Sexual Harassment via comments, touching and intimidation.
Initial complaint summary provided below:

[For an extended amount oftime, Dr. Carne! Smith has made comments about my appearance that
are inappropriate. His behavior has included many unwelcomed comments, suggestions,
spreading rumors and physical contact. His focus was typically my shoes (that I wore heels) and
how I looked in them. I was often told that I "should wear more skirts" or "wear a dress and
heels" all the time at work. My typical work attire was a nice shirt (or sweater when it got colder
outside), jeans or dress pants, and heels. As the year progressed, Dr. Smith's comments became
more inappropriate.

Most incidents happened behind closed doors (whether in his office or in my classroom). Every
incident includes comments about my heels and what I should be wearing with them. Several
comments were made about how "I know you feel sexy in those. " One instance I even replied, "I
don 't feel sexy and that's not why I wear them. " I tried to keep track of when this happened but
did not get all the dates. The dates will be listed at the end of this statement.] Full Statement is
contained in the Evidence Packet as Exhibit 1.

If true, these allegations would constitute violations of the following provisions of Policy AC:

The Board is committed to an environment in which all individuals, including students, staff,
job applicants, the general public and individuals with whom it does business, are treated with
dignity and respect. The Board prohibits discrimination or harassment in the workplace, academic
setting, or in its programs or activities based on race, color, national origin, ancestry, citizenship
status, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, economic status, age, disability, military
status or legally acquired genetic information.

Investigative Procedures

The Investigator(s) proceeded with the investigation of this Complaint on April 29, 2023.

The Investigator(s) interviewed the following individuals:

• Complainant (with Toledo Federation of Teachers (TFT) Representative-Andrew
Frank)
• Respondent

All parties were informed of the investigation procedures.

This report is intended to be a summary of all relevant evidence and a description of what was
learned through an investigation. For the sake of clarity, the report is organized chronologically
and by subject matter when appropriate. Please refer to the full record, including the contents of
the Evidence Packet.

Summaries of both Complainant and Respondent is included in the Exhibit Packet as Exhibit
3 and 4 respectively.

Additional Documentation

Dr. Smith felt it was relevant to provide documentation that he held Ms. Muchiarone in high
regard. A recommendation letter is contained in the Evidence Packet as Exhibit 5.
Following the notices of complaint, Investigator Irving communicated via email regarding
questions that Ms. Muchiarone presented throughout the investigation. Emails are contained in
the Evidence Packet as Exhibit 6.

Exhibits

MODEL EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION LANGUAGE

Examples based on sample Complainant interview summary:

• Exhibit 1: Formal Complaint filed by Complainant on April 13, 2023

(Received by Human Resources on April 17, 2023).
• Exhibit 2: Written notices of complaint from the Acting Assistant
Superintendent to Respondent and Complainant dated April 19, 2023.
• Exhibit 3: Complainant Interview Summary dated April 29, 2023.
• Exhibit 4: Respondent Interview Summary dated May 3, 2023.
• Exhibit 5: Smith Recommendation dated December 5, 2022.
• Exhibit 6: Email Correspondence
 Decision-Maker's Written Determination

Toledo Public Schools

In re: Sexual Harassment Complaint HRSS 22-23 019 Tamara Muchiarone/Carnel Smith

Date: June 8, 2023

The undersigned Decision-Maker was assigned by the Acting Assistant Superintendent of Hwnan
Resources to determine whether the Respondent engaged in sexual harassment in violation of Board
Policy AC. Specifically, Complainant alleged that, Respondent made unwelcome, inappropriate
comments, suggestions and intimidating statements to the Complainant including numerous comments
regarding her appearance, particularly her shoes. The comments and suggestions were sexual in nature
or contained sexual innuendo, such as, "I know you feel sexy in those" and, "I know you wear those for
me", referring to her heels. Complainant also alleges that Respondent asked Coach Christopher Weakley
about their relationship asking whether it was a sexual relationship. She also alleges that Respondent
was spreading rumors about her saying that she was the reason people had lost their jobs and that is why
he told Coach Weakley that he should stay away from her. Complainant denied any relationships that
Respondent questioned and was upset that he was discussing her personal life with others. There were
also allegations of unwelcomed physical contact (touching her shoes and her hand) and simply staring at
her (while sitting on a ball chair and asking her to turn around so he could see her). She has also noticed
subtle things since she filed her first complaint (Decision-maker is unaware of this complaint) like
leaving her name out of his newsletter when it should have been there and now, she is worried about
retaliation. One fear came as CPO Pargo was moved after Respondent told him to stay away from
Complainant. Complainant reports a hostile work environment as she is extremely uncomfortable at
work. She has even started going to work early to avoid seeing him in the morning.

I. Procedural Steps

A. Formal Complaint and Process:

• On April 13, 2023, Tamara Muchiarone (hereinafter Complainant) reported to Human Resources
that she had been subjected to Sexual Harassment by Camel Smith (hereinafter Respondent)
• On April 19, 2023, the District provided the Complainant and Respondent with written notice of
the Complaint.
• The Acting Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources assigned the investigation to Diane
Irving (Investigator) who proceeded with the investigation.
• On April 21,2023, Diane Irving emailed Complainant to set an interview time and through email
set a meeting date.

B. Investigation:
• On April 29, 2023, the Complainant was interviewed by Investigator with TFT Representative
Andrew Frank Present.
 • On May 3, 2023, Respondent was interviewed by the Investigator. All parties were informed of
the investigative procedures.
• The Investigator communicated with Complainant via email regarding questions that
Complainant presented throughout the investigation.

C. Decision
• On May 22, 2023, the Investigative report was sent to Kristin Romaine-Blochowski (Decision-
maker)
• On May 25, 2023, Decision-maker spoke with Investigator to obtain the contact information for
Coach Christopher Weakley
• On June 2, 2023, Decision-maker spoke with Coach Christopher Weakley (Relevant findings are
included herein)
• June 6, 2023, all attempts to contact CPO Pargo detennined to be unsuccessful.
• On June 8, 2023, the Decision was sent to the Acting Assistant Superintendent of Human
Resources-f-1-J~-ayst

II. Jurisdiction

Because the formal complaint alleges incidents that occurred on school property and school-
sponsored events, The District has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to Board Policy AC. The
reported incidents occurred at various locations throughout Scott High School, 2400
Collingwood, Toledo, Ohio, a school in the TPS District.

III. Findings

The Decision-maker finds that the record does support by a preponderance of the evidence that
the Respondent sexually harassed Complainant during the 2022-2023 academic year in violation
of Board Policy AC.

IV. Standard of Review

In evaluating allegations of a violation under Board Policy Section A: Foundations and Basic
Commitments Title: Nondiscrimination, Code ACAA-R, the Respondent is presumed not to have
violated policy unless a "preponderance of the evidence" supports a finding that the conduct
occurred.

V. Relevant Policy

• Board Policy Section A: Foundations and Basic Commitments, Title: Nondiscrimination, Codes
AC, ACAA, ACA, ACAA-R
• In this case, BOARD POLICY MANUAL Section A: Foundations and Basic Commitments,
Title: Nondiscrimination, Code AC is implicated in the investigation. This Code states:
o The Board's policy of nondiscrimination extends to students, staff, job applicants, the
general public and individuals with whom it does business and applies to race, color,
 national origin, ancestry, citizenship status, religion, sex, economic status, age, disability,
or military status.
o The Board does not discriminate on the basis of legally acquired genetic information.
o The Board does not pennit discriminatory practices and views harassment as a form of
discrimination. Harassment is defined as intimidation by threats of or actual
physical violence; the creation, by whatever means including the use of electronic
communications devices, of a climate of hostility or intimidation; or the use of
language, conduct or symbols in such a manner as to be commonly understood to convey
hatred, contempt, or prejudice or to have the effect of insulting or stigmatizing an
individual.
o Employees or students who engage in discrimination of another employee or student shall
be subject to disciplinary action. Permission, consent, or assumption of risk by an
individual subjected to discrimination does not lessen the prohibition contained in
this policy. No one shall retaliate against an employee or student because he/she files a
grievance; assists or participates in an investigation, proceeding or hearing regarding the
charge of discrimination of an individual; or because he/she has opposed language or
conduct that violates this policy.

• Although ACA, ACAA, and ACAA-R refer to Title IX, the definitions listed are relevant and
will be used for this Title VII determination.

VI. Evidence Considered

The Decision-Maker reviewed and considered the following evidence:

• All evidence obtained as part of the investigation that is directly related to the
allegations raised in the formal complaint, which was provided to the Parties.
• The Investigative Report prepared by the Investigator and provided to the Parties,
including all listed exhibits.
• Follow-up evidence obtained by Decision-maker to corroborate or to rebut the
allegations.

VII. Analysis and Findings

Allegation of Sexual Harassment

Complainant alleged in her formal complaint that Respondent subjected her to sexual harassment in
violation of Board Policy AC, Nondiscrimination, during the academic year 2022/2023. Evidence
Related to this allegation includes the Complaint by Complainant, the interviews of both Complainant
and Respondent, and the follow up interview of Christopher Weakley. Each allegation along with the
Response of the Respondent will be considered in the order presented in the Complaint and/or the
Interview.
1. Initial Comments by the Complainant: In the complaint, the Complainant stated that for an extended
time (listed in the chart as September 2022 until February 2023), Respondent made inappropriate
comments about her appearance, made comments, suggestions, spread rumors and had physical contact
with her that were all unwelcomed. The comments initially focused on her heels and wearing more skirts
or dresses and progressively became more inappropriate. The quotes included that she "should wear
more skirts" or "wear a dress and heels." In her interview, she also indicated that many unwelcome
comments and suggestions were made by Respondent that were very inappropriate. She stated that,
"The harassment complaint is because of the hostile environment. I can't go through another year like
this." She said, "If he stays - I will leave".
Initial Comments by Respondent: Respondent was given the Complaint to read and respond to the
allegations. In his first response he stated, "This is all BS and just lies, she's going back 7 months and
Why Now?"

Decision-maker comments:
The Complainant states that she feels the behavior of the Respondent is unwelcome and inappropriate,
and she feels she is working in a hostile environment, she can't go through another year like she had
and if he stayed, she would leave. The information is detailed and provides specific quotes said to her
and her feelings regarding the comments.
The Respondent's comment is a general denial and not a specific denial of each allegation.
As the Complainant's allegations are detailed and specific, credibility leans to the Complainant.

2. Complainant stated that most incidents occurred when she and Respondent were alone. The specific
comments listed were about her heels and that he allegedly said numerous times, "I know you feel sexy
in those" . She remembers replying once that she did not feel sexy and that was not why she wore them.
Respondent did not specifically address these comments but did address how he comments on her shoes.
He said, "Her shoes? - you look nice today, nice shoes - that's it". He then commented that he sent out
emails about dress code and Complainant did not follow them.

Decision-maker comments:
Complainant states the behavior was usually private and explains an inappropriate comment by
Respondent. Complainant states that she refuted this particular comment on one occasion.
Respondent's comment reads as a denial of inappropriate comments on her shoes as he states that all he
has said is that her shoes are nice. He then deflects to her not following the dress code which is not an
issue that has been brought up in this situation.

3. Complainant states that she was told by Coach (and LT sub) Christopher Weakley (hereinafter
referred to as Mr. Weakley) that Respondent reached out in order to meet after school and Respondent
asked him, "Are you fucking Mooch?" and continued to discuss and speculate on her sexual history.
Respondent also mentioned rumors that Complainant was the reason that former staff "lost their job(s)"
and that is why he (Mr. Weakley) should stay away from her. When Coach Weakley told Complainant
about the conversation, she was, "appalled and horrified" as her personal life is personal. She went on to
comment that none of his comments were true.
Respondent mentioned Mr. Weakley numerous times throughout his statement. The first response was
that Respondent walked in Complainant's office and she and Mr. Weakley were sitting behind her desk
"intimately" and Mr. Weakley then "beelined" to Respondent's office to try and figure out what
Respondent saw. Respondent told him he needs to focus and then commented in his interview that
Complainant never went to basketball events like she did with this Coach. He went on to say that he
always follows up with staff about behaviors and relationships with students. He commented that when
Mr. Weakley got busted for something, he always beelined to his office. Respondent said he asked AD
Wakeso Peterson to talk to Mr. Weakley about students being at his house.
Later in his statement Respondent said, "Coach Weakley is just talking - he knows nothing." He then
stated that he felt threatened by Mr. Weakley's resignation and went on to state that Respondent h·eated
him like gold and then he did this. Respondent said he doesn't know what was going on with the two of
them but doesn't care.
Later in his statement he said that conversations in his office with Mr. Weakley were never "around"
Complainant and he then provided some negative comments about Mr. Weakley and his lack of
maturity. He then said, "Now he gets his ass in a sling and he and Muchiarone get emotional".
Further on in his statement he commented that Weakley was telling people that he was going to get fired
just before this harassment claim was filed.

Decision-maker comments:
Complainant stated that she was appalled and horrified at the specific behavior listed by Respondent.
In Respondent's comments about Mr. Weakley and Complainant, Respondent never specifically denied
that the questions about Complainant were asked, and the closest statement of a denial was that
"Weakley knows nothing." Respondent's statement instead referred to Mr. Weakly being in trouble and
mentioned poor actions on the part of the Coach. When mentioning that Complainant and Mr. Weakley
got emotional as a result of getting his "ass in a sling", Respondent appears to be making the
implication that Complainant and Respondent were worldng together on this complaint because of the
forced resignation ofMr. Weakley. Although this could be the case, it was never specifically stated by
Complainant that this was the case.
Further, as the dynamics of the situation between Complainant, Respondent and Mr. Weakley were
unknown to the Decision-maker, much of the context of the statement by Respondent was unclear.
However, as it was believed that Mr. Weakley could corroborate or rebut the allegations, contact was
made with the Investigator who advised that Coach Weakley had recently resigned his position as the
basketball coach at Scott and stated that was why she did not call him. She then provided his contact
information and advised that he could be contacted. On June 2, Mr. Weakley was contacted to confirm
or rebut the information regarding the conversation that was reported above. During the phone call,
Mr. Weakley tried to explain the details of why he left Scott and was asked to only explain the basics. He
stated that he had been forced to resign due to a false allegation and indicated that it had hurt his
relationship with the Respondent. He confirmed that the conversation with Respondent did occur as
stated in Complainant's statement and that he told the Complainant about the conversation. He told her
as he did not think it was appropriate for the Respondent to be discussing the Complainant's sex life.
He also denied that there was a relationship between him and the Complainant and was not sure why it
was the Respondent's business. He also stated that if he were a woman in the building like Complainant
that he would not put up with the way Respondent treated and talked about Complainant. Mr. Weakley
did appear upset with Respondent, but he went on to state that resigning was for the best because he was
in a good situation where he moved to. He said that he was glad he was contacted because he thought it
was the right thing to do to confirm the Complainant's statement as the truth is all that matters, and he
would not want his daughter treated the way she was.
As Complainant's allegation was corroborated by a witness, this allegation and the Complainant is
viewed as credible.

4. Complainant stated that on September 22 at a pep assembly when Respondent saw her, he
commented on her white out outfit and said she was "hunting for a maaaan". She stated that she shook
her head and kept on walking, going past him, or trying to get him out of the way.
Respondent stated that his wife was standing there, and Complainant came up to show him her outfit.

Decision-maker comments: Complainant provides specifics on Respondent's behavior and indicates that
after the Respondent made the comment to her, she shook her head and kept wal/dng to get past him.
Respondent's response is not a specific denial of his comment. The statement he made could indicate
that it happened in front of his wife or Respondent could be saying that he would never have said this in
front of his wife, implying that it wasn't said. As no follow-up question was asked in the investigation, it
cannot be discerned what was meant.
Complainant is viewed as credible.

5. Complainant stated that Respondent entered her room during her planning hour as she was sitting on
her ball chair. He grabbed a chair and moved it close to her desk and said, "I'm just going to sit here
and watch you sit on that ball." She expressed discomfort in her complaint but began talking to
Respondent about another issue. In her Interview, she also stated that she was uncomfortable, and he
just looked her up and down, staring at her. She confirmed again that she changed the topic.
Respondent advised that he said to her, "Oh you got a ball in here?" He then told Investigator, "why
would I want to watch her sit on a ball?" And said we got kids in here to worry about.

Decision-maker comments: Complainant provided a quote and expressed discomfort and stated she
tried to change the topic.
In the Response, Respondent says he mentioned that she had a ball and nothing more. He then asked
Investigator a question but did not give a specific denial. Respondent also deflected to the students
implying that they were more important than her on a ball, but still did not deny his behavior.
Complainant is viewed as credible.

6. Complainant stated that on November 15, Respondent came by her room 3 specific times to look at
her. The last time he stayed until all the students left and stared at her with a look that made her
uncomfortable. He looked at her up and down (as he had done before), asked her to turn around (so he
could get a full look) and then focused on her shoes and said, "I know you wear those for me." She
confirmed the same information in her interview and added he also told her that she should be wearing
skirts and heels more.
Respondent did not specifically address this allegation.

Decision-maker comments:
Complainant provided specific details on behavior by the Respondent that made her uncomfortable.
Respondent did not address this allegation, so he did not deny this allegation.
Complainant is viewed as credible.

7. Complainant states that another incident involving Mr. Weakley occurred when she was approaching
him to talk about grades of two of his players. She listed a specific location and time. He was talking to
Respondent who had a meter stick or a few rubber-banded together (two similar but different
statements). Respondent pointed to her shoes and made a comment to Mr. Weakley about "measuring
up those shoes."
Respondent stated that he carries the stick because he tells everyone he is measuring success and that all
in the building know this.

Decision-maker Comments:
Complainant gave specifics about this behavior and although the appearance of the meter stick is
different in the complaint and the interview, it does not change the basic information of the comment
and all the other details were the same.
Respondent explained why. He had the stick but did not make a specific denial of this statement.
In speaking with Mr. Weakley as mentioned previously, he began discussing this specific situation
before the question about a meter stick was even asked. He said it made him uncomfortable and showed
him how the Respondent talked about women, especially the Complainant.
As Complainant's allegation was corroborated by a witness, this allegation and the Complainant is
viewed as credible.

8. Complainant stated that on January 4, 2023, she went to Respondent's office to talk about staffing.
She left the door open and explained she was sitting in a chair at his round table. Respondent got up and
closed the door and as he was walking back to his seat, he rnbbed her beige heels. This same statement
is made in the Interview of Complainant, but the date is listed as January 24.
Respondent did not address this allegation.

Decision-maker comments:
Complainant's information was specific and detailed.
Respondent did not address this allegation, so he did not deny this allegation.
Complainant is viewed as credible.
9. Complainant stated that on January 10, Respondent went to her classroom (7 111 period) and when he
was leaving, he grabbed her hand from where she had it in the door frame and held it for about a
minute's time while telling her not to put it there and not to hold the door that way. In the Interview, she
added that he said it was dangerous.
Respondent stated he never touched her hand. He went on to say that it is one of his pet peeves to see
someone put their hand in the door frame as he hates to think about their hand getting smashed.

Decision-maker comments:
Complainant stated the behavior with specific details.
Respondent denied touching her. He then said it is a pet peeve of his. This appears to be a specific
denial of touching her but his additional comment about it being a pet peeve ofhis clouds the matter as
he denies the touching behavior but then says he has a reason for the behavior that he says did not
happen. It appears that the comments were said from both of their statements, but the inappropriate
touching ofher hand is at issue.

10. Complainant stated that when she met CPO Pargo, he said, "So that's who you are, I was informed
to stay away from you". When she told Mr. Weakley about this, he told her that it was in response to
CPO Pargo being told by Respondent to stay away from her. When CPOs were moved by Respondent,
CPO Pargo was moved from the building. Complainant commented to CPO Pargo and Mr. Weakley "do
people have nothing better to do than talk about me?"
Respondent said he moves CPOs all the time, and he tells all of them to be careful how they act.

Decision-maker comments:
Complainant says she believes CPO Pargo was told by Respondent not to talk to her and implies that is
why he was moved from the building. There is no information to confirm the belief as to why he was
moved nor give it credibility and it appears to be speculation on the part of Complainant.
Respondent did not provide a specific denial of the comment nor why he moved CPO Pargo, and just
said that he moved CPOs and told them all how to act. The implication appears to be that this was not
about her, just part of his job. However, this was not specifically stated nor followed up on.
CPO Pargo was not interviewed and did not respond to attempts to contact him. Mr. Weakley was not
asked how he knew this information. As Complainant discussed this issue with two different people
(although not specifically corroborated) and there is a pattern of Respondent discussing Complainant
with others, Complainant is viewed as credible in her belief that CPO Pargo was told to stay away from
her.

11. Complainant stated that since she filed her first complaint, there was a subtle pattern of comments in
the Bulldog Update targeting her or omitting her name for field trips like to Lourdes for Stem day. In the
Interview, Complainant also stated that she had become paranoid and felt like she was being watched
and listened to through the sound system. She made a comment to someone in her room about the
workers working on the sound system and about a half hour later, an email came out about the same
issue as her comment.
Respondent commented that Complainant put him "on blast" with the building email system over
electrical problems but then didn't like it when he responded to her.

Decision-maker comments:
Complainant's statement is that she felt as if things were happening as a result of her filing a complaint,
but then only provided speculation on what the Respondent was doing. When something is subtle and an
omission, it is difficult to prove and Complainant even indicated paranoia as she did not have proof
Respondent did not directly address the Bulldog Update nor the eavesdropping but seemed to be
implying that he did not eavesdrop. He did not need to eavesdrop as she had told others "on blast"
about the issue. This was not specifically stated and there is no specific denial of these allegations. As
such it is fair to assume that Complainant truly felt this was the start ofretaliation, even if it was not.

12. Complainant stated that on December 9, Respondent looked at her feet and said, "I see you", and
then did an up and down look at her and said, "It's a great day to be alive."
Respondent did not address these comments.

Decision-makers Comments:
Complainant provides a specific date and detailed comments.
Respondent did not address these comments, so he did not deny them.
Complainant is viewed as credible.

13. Complainant states that on February 9, she passed Respondent in the hall and turned around to see
him looking at her butt.
Respondent did not address this behavior.

Decision-maker Comments:
Complainant provides a specific date and detailed comments.
Respondent did not address these comments, so he did not deny them.
Complainant is viewed as credible.

14. Complainant's Chart

9.22 - Addressed in the Complaint and the Interview (#4 above)
10.17 - Respondent went to see her during her planning hour
10 .18 - Complaint wore dress and heels and Respondent stopped by during her planning hour and lunch
10.19 - Stopped by and made a subtle comment or look directed towards shoes or outfit
11.11 - Stopped by and made a subtle comment or look directed towards shoes or outfit
11.15 - Addressed in the Complaint and the Interview (#6 above)
11.17 - Stopped by and made a subtle comment or look directed towards shoes or outfit
11.28 - Stopped by and made a subtle comment or look directed towards shoes or outfit
12.6 - Respondent saw complainant before 8 am
12.9 - Addressed in the Interview (#12 above)
1.4 - Addressed in the Complaint and listed as 1/24 in the Interview (#8 above)
1.10 - Addressed In the Complaint and the Interview (#9 above)
1.12 - Stopped by and made a subtle comment or look directed towards shoes or outfit
2.9 - Addressed in the Interview (#13 above)

Decision-maker Comments:
The Complainant's chart is detailed and extensive and more specifics are addressed in the complaint
and interview.
Respondent did not address the chart except that he commented twice in his statement that she was
going back 7 months. He did not provide a specific denial. Items not addressed in the specific details in
the numbers show Complainant as credible.

15. Interview Question of Respondent: At the end of the interview, the Interviewer asked the
Complainant - Have you done anything to stop this from happening? Were you offended? Did you let
him know you were offended? Did you tell him to stop?
Complainant says that she did not directly confront him as he is her principal and she saw how he had
been with others, and they ended up leaving Scott. So, no, besides changing the topic or joking it off
because she thought she could change the subject and move on. She is very offended and upset but never
said anything to him like that. She wants to stay at Scott where she has been for 19 years but can't go
another year like this. She said she filled out a form for TECHS, but the reference goes to Respondent
like every application reference goes to the Principal. As stated above, Complainant said that if
Respondent stays, she will leave.

Relevant Respondent comments: Complainant has never said anything to him about being offended
about anything. He said that he is not inappropriate with anyone, and he simply greets people and
speaks, but he knows where he is and the target on his back. He gets attacks from TFT about teachers
being on time and dress, but he knows what he does for Scott High School and the community. He said
he would never give her a bad recommendation and would not mess with her profession as it would only
be based on her work. He provided a recommendation he had done in December of 2022 that was
positive.

Decision-maker comments:
Complainant and Respondent both state that Complainant never directly stated that she was
uncomfortable or that his behavior was unwelcome. However, this is not required for a finding ofsexual
harassment . Additionally, Respondent deflects to himselfand the attacks from TFT but does not explain
how that is relevant to these allegations.
16. Complainant's additional comments not addressed above: Complainant said she had filed a
complaint against Respondent before, and her discomfort increased significantly throughout the year.
She has stayed clear of him and is never alone with him. She feels there is a bigger target on her back
now and advised both her TFT Rep Andrew Frank and Dr. Treva Jeffries-Martin about her concerns.
She fears retaliation. She stated that she cannot wait for the year to be over and of all of her 19 years, she
has never been in such a hostile work environment resulting from comments including how to dress
sexier and about her heels, the glances, and the inquiries about possible relationships. Complainant
states that Respondent discussed where she parked and what doors she used. She said she wants another
OTES evaluator like last year because she does not trust anyone. She said she is paranoid and doesn't
even feel safe in her own room. She has seen people drive by her house to see who is at her house. She
says she has been in a relationship for 5 years but does not share her personal information with others.
She also said that this is not a complete list.

Decision-maker comments:
Complainant explains her distress over the Respondent's behavior, her reporting of his behavior, things
she has said to him, and things done to avoid him. She makes her subjective belief clear that the
behavior of Respondent was severe and pervasive. She also discusses her fears of retaliation in the
future.

17. Respondent's additional comments not addressed above: Respondent stated that the building rep told
him that Complainant can be a bit of a firecracker and he said, "I can't respond back?" He advised that
he does not do her OTES evaluation and has always sent it out. He also said his first couple of years at
Scott, he couldn't get away from Complainant and when he became Principal, she went around all the
men and told him all the people were spreading rumors about her. He said rumors and allegations are
not new to her. He also stated this is total retaliation. He said, I don't go near her - ifI see her, I speak.
She's coming here with this BS from Sept." He said she is overrating herself and maybe she needs a new
start as she just can't get with it. She can't adjust to a professional dress code. He said, "She sounds
like a woman scorned and I still ask - why now?"

Decision-maker Comments:
Respondent's additional comments are confusing and do not have any follow up to see the relevance to
a denial of the allegations. Some of the comments about Complainant include saying someone called
her a firecracker, saying she is overrating herself; she can't get with it, can 't adjust to a dress code, and
sounds like a woman scorned, all seem to have nothing to do with the allegations. None of these
comments serve as denials of his behavior and when looking at the common meaning of the phrases
(such as "overrating herself" and she sounds like a "woman scorned") these appear to be put downs
that are insinuating or trying to explain her maldng these allegations because of an issue she has and
not because of his actual behavior. "Overrating herself" generally means that a person is giving
themselves too much credit and reads as if he is saying that he would not sexually harass her as she is
not all that she thinks she is. And "a woman scorned" generally means that a woman is angry due to
rejection, but this is not explained. Did Respondent reject her??? However, as no follow-up questions
were asked, these comments will not be considered as there is no understanding of their true meaning.
Additionally, he commented that he doesn't go near her but in the same sentence said that if he sees
her, he speaks to her, contradicting that he does not go near her. In that same response, he comments
on the timeline of "BS from September" but doesn't explain what happened in September or why that is
relevant. The lack ofspecifics, explanations, and failures to deny specifics, all diminish the credibility of
Respondent and that these statements are denials.

Applying the standards to the evidence:

In order to establish sexual harassment in violation of Board Policy, a preponderance of the evidence
must establish that the Respondent subjected Complainant to "sexual harassment" meaning conduct on
the basis of sex that satisfies the definition unwelcome conduct determined by a reasonable person to
be so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively denies a person equal access to
the District's education program or activity.

Unwelcome conduct is unwelcome in the sense that the employee did not solicit or incite it, and in the
sense that the employee regarded the conduct as undesirable or offensive. Complainant throughout her
statement indicates that the behavior of Respondent was unwelcome and lists the detailed and specific
comments and behaviors that were inappropriate, undesirable and offensive to her. There is no
indication that she ever solicited it or incited it, nor participated in it in any way. She stated that she
may have laughed some of them off at the beginning but then began to ignore, change the subject, or
comment back. Complainant and Respondent both state that Complainant did not specifically say to
Respondent that his behavior was offensive, but a complaint or protest, although helpful to proving that
the behavior was unwelcome, is not a necessary element of the claim especially since the complaining
party may fear repercussions by complaining about the harassment. Retaliation is a fear by most
complainants as evidenced by the fact that a prohibition on retaliation must be listed in the law and
policy. That fear may explain why a protest was not made about the conduct. Although Complainant in
this case did not specifically tell the Respondent that she did not like his behavior, her responses never
indicated approval and she has shown that she felt the listed behaviors were unwelcome.

Complainant indicated that most of the Respondent's conduct was done outside of the view of others,
with the exception of the situations involving Mr. Weakley. That is not uncommon as behavior that
constitutes sexual harassment is often private and unacknowledged, with no eyewitnesses. Even conduct
that occurs openly in the workplace may appear to be consensual to other witnesses that do not know the
situation. As many sexual harassment cases are the two parties disputing what the other has said, if a
witness was required, very few cases would be found to be sexual harassment. As a result, a resolution
of a sexual harassment claim often depends on the credibility of the parties and their statements. In this
situation, most of the behavior occurred outside of the view of others and the credibility of the parties
from their statements must be made in order to make a determination. As with any other charge of
discrimination, to be credible, a victim's account must be sufficiently detailed and internally consistent
so as to be plausible. In reviewing the allegations with the Decision-maker comments above, it is clear
that the Complainant's allegations were very specific including dates, times, locations, words used,
actions that accompanied the words and feelings that the behaviors caused. The complaint and the
interview are both consistent with additional details sometimes listed in one or the other, but none being
contradictory.
The Complainant was very clear about her feelings, her concerns, her responses and had kept records of
dates where general comments on her appearance were made that seemed to become the norm in their
interactions.

Respondent's answers to the allegations lacked specifics, often lacked relevance, were confusing and
many times did not specifically address the allegations made. In most situations a specific denial of the
behavior was not made, and he often deflected to the time frame or to others behavior including Mr.
Weakley's issues or Complainant being scorned or unable to follow a dress code. With regard to the
timeframe of going back 7 months, the timeline has no bearing on whether or not these events took
place. In fact, it may suggest that the behavior was pervasive and impacting her more extensively and
for a longer time, making the situation more likely to be sexual harassment. Additionally, Respondent's
statements do not try to explain his version of what happened or try say that things were misunderstood.
They contain a lot of innuendo implying reasons for behavior but never specifically stating reasons.
Although the Respondent gave a general denial initially, that statement carries little weight when
contradicted by other evidence and failing to deny the specifics in the Complaint. From the review of the
allegations and the responses numbered above, a decision on the credibility of both parties can be made
quite easily and the credibility decision favors the Complainant on almost every allegation.

As mentioned previously, most sexual harassment cases are the two parties disputing each other's
statements, so if there is corroboration, that becomes important. If the investigation exhausts all
possibilities for obtaining corroborative evidence, but finds none when it should logically exist, the
allegations would be undermined. But if all possibilities were exhausted and there is none to logically
find, a finding for the complainant can be based solely on a reasoned decision to give credit to the
charging party's allegations. In other words, a credibility determination can be used if there is not
corroboration. In this case, without corroboration from the investigation, it is reasonable to give credit
to and believe the Complainant's allegations due to the specificity of each and the fact that although she
was fearful of reporting her supervisor, she repo1ied the behavior twice.

However, in this case, there is also corroboration of two of the Complainant's allegations from Mr.
Weakley. Mr. Weakley used much of the same phrasing as the Complainant. Also, the Respondent
spent much of his response to the allegations discussing the problems with Mr. Weakley and implying
that he should not be believed due to the issues he had with Respondent. However, in speaking with Mr.
Weakley, he indicated that he was past being upset with the Respondent and had no reason to lie for the
Complainant. He indicated it was the right thing to do. Respondent also seemed to insinuate that
Complainant and Mr. Weakley were in a relationship and doing this in retaliation for the issues
surrounding Mr. Weakley leaving (when he said they "got emotional"). When looking at that issue
using a reasonable person standard, it seems unlikely that a person would risk their career and risk
retaliation to file a sexual harassment complaint over a friend who chose to resign, forced or not. Also,
the majority of the allegations by Complainant had nothing to do with Mr. Weakley and he could not
corroborate them. It is reasonable to believe that if they were both making up this serious allegation at
the expense of Complainant's professional life, they might have given Mr. Weakley credit with being
able to corroborate more of the many allegations, not just two. This is speculation however and is not
being used to make this decision.

Respondent also refers to the Complainant as a woman scorned but never explains what he means.
Assuming he meant angry because of rejection would also be speculation and will not be a consideration
in the decision.

As the credibility determination leans to the Complainant that the conduct occurred and was unwelcome,
it must be determined whether or not the unwelcome conduct of the Respondent rose to the level of
being so severe or pervasive and patently offensive as to alter the conditions of employment or create a
hostile work environment. Simple flirtation, teasing, offhand comments, innuendo, minor isolated
incidents, or even vulgar language that is h·ivial or merely annoying, would probably not establish a
hostile environment and this is not the procedure for dealing with petty slights. But behavior that rises
to the level of sexual harassment is severe and pervasive, not petty, nor isolated.

There can be many forms of hostile enviromnent harassment so the factors to look at may be different in
each case but some things that may affect the determination include whether the conduct was verbal or
physical, or both; how frequently it was repeated; whether the alleged harasser was a co-worker or a
supervisor: and whether the conduct was hostile and patently offensive. In this case, Complainant
indicates that the conduct was mainly done with words and body language but on two occasions was
physical. The behavior was repeated more times than the Complainant could keep track of, but she
listed many incidences of this behavior that caused her to change her comings and goings from work to
avoid the Respondent. Additionally, the timeline is relevant to the severity and frequency as it shows
that the Complainant withstood almost an entire school year of comments before she complained. The
Respondent was a supervisor, making her have concerns of not wanting to upset her boss and concerns
of retaliation for her career. The behavior was clearly offensive to the complainant as she indicated that
in 19 years, it was the worst environment she had ever worked in, she would not work with Respondent
again and would leave if he stayed.

But the standard to determine hostile work environment is looking at the conduct from the objective
viewpoint of a reasonable person in that position. When that is done and the statements are determined
to be credible and unwelcome, the behavior was sufficiently severe and pervasive and so patently
offensive as to rise to the level of sexual harassment. The frequency, the sexual content of the
statements, the actions of touching her shoes or hand and staring at her or her shoes in a sexual way
were completely inappropriate in a professional workplace and no reasonable person would accept the
stated behavior nor say the Complainant should have to accept that behavior from a supervisor or
anyone else in a work enviromnent.
The Complainant is found to be credible in her statements and she has shown that the comments were
unwelcome. The behavior of Respondent was subjectively and objectively so severe, pervasive, and
offensive and caused the Complainant to change her routines and fear retaliation, as to rise to the level
of a hostile work environment. As the Respondent provided a general denial along with many statements
that were irrelevant, confusing, accusatory, and personal attacks, he did not sufficiently deny the
allegations (with a few exceptions) and his credibility is lessened as a result. It is therefore the belief
that the Complainant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that she was subjected to sexual
harassment by the Respondent.

VIII. Appeal Rights of the Parties

Upon receipt of this written decision, both Complainant and Respondent may appeal this written
decision by providing a written appeal to the Title IX Coordinator on the grounds provided in TPS
policy.

IX. Conclusion

For the reasons above, this Decision-Maker finds by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent
did violate Board Policy AC by sexually harassing Complainant as a result of Respondent's behaviors
toward the Complainant during the 2022/2023 Academic year.

Kristin Romaine-Blocho
Decision-Maker
 H~L
HEBAN
MURPHREE
LEWANDOWSKI

200 Dixie Highway

February 6, 2024
Rossford, Ohio 43460
Telephone: 419.662.3100 Electronic Transmission
Facsimile: 419.662.6533 Original by Ordinary US Mail

Amy Natyshak, Esq.

Marshall & Mehom, LLC
4 Seagate, Eight Floor
Toledo, Ohio 43604

Re: Special Assignment

Review of Continuing Disciplinary Investigation Evidence

Dear Ms. Natyshak:

This correspondence serves as the written report of my review of the

"Continuing Disciplinary Investigation" pertaining to allegations of sexual
harassment against Camel Smith, Principal at Scott High School of Toledo
Public Schools (hereafter "TPS" or "the District").

Scope of Engagement

The scope of this engagement as it is understood is to independently review

the "new evidence" (i.e. text messages) that was submitted by Mr. Smith
during a "Continuing Disciplinary Investigation Hearing" (hereafter "the
CDI") and to determine the impact, if any, on the ultimate outcome of the
discipline process, including the original "Decision-Maker' s Written decision
dated June 8, 2023" and the conclusion reached by Hearing Officer Susan
DeTano issued as a result of a hearing held on November 9, 2023.

It should be noted that this review is not specifically provided for in either
TPS policy or the applicable collective bargaining agreement. Thus, there is
not a clear identification of what may and may not be considered in reaching a
determination regarding the impact of the "new evidence" presented at the
CDI. However, the alleged harassment here is what would constitute "hostile
environment" harassment. Such a determination of what constitutes a "hostile
environment" in the workplace cannot be made in a vacuum by considering
isolated incidents. Rather, "hostile environment" claims must be considered
Kevin A. Heban given the totality of the circumstances surrounding the allegations. Thus, the
R. Kent Murphree• undersigned cannot consider the "new evidence" in isolation - - as it must be
John P. Lewandowski considered in light of all of the facts surrounding the allegations.
Gary 0 . Sommer•
Gina M. Wasserman
Channa B. Beard
Of Counsel
Philip C. Davis
• Also Admitted in Michigon
Ms. Amy Natyshak, Esq.
February 6, 2024
Page 2 of5

Documents Reviewed

Given the limited scope of this engagement, in reaching the conclusion set
forth below, the undersigned reviewed the Decision-Maker's Written
Determination dated June 8, 2023 (hereafter "the Decision"), which
referenced evidence gathered during an internal investigation, as well as the
information proffered by Management and the Union during the CDI hearing
held on November 9, 2023. Thus, this review, report, and conclusion are
based solely upon the findings/conclusions of the Decision, and the evidence
presented during the CDI (which includes the text messages that were
previously not proffered until the CDI hearing occurred).

Basis for CDI

Under the applicable collective bargaining agreement covering Mr. Smith,

Article XIV - Matrix Discipline states in pertinent part:

A. Due Process Provisions

The matrix employee whose conduct or action is the subject of an

investigation shall be entitled to: timely and adequate notice of the
conduct or action complained of on prescribed forms * * *;
reasonable time to prepare an answer or response; and
representation by TAAP at such investigation and other reasonable
procedures affording due process.

***

C. Three (3) Step Process

***

3. Step 3:Continuing Disciplinary Investigation Report

a. The appointed designee of the Human Resources Office shall be

empowered to hear testimony, examine witnesses, and review all
relevant material pertaining to the continuing disciplinary
investigation, for the purpose of 1ssumg a report to the
Superintendent, or his/her designee, for is/her
decision/recommendation. * * *
Ms. Amy Natyshak, Esq.
February 6, 2024
Page 3 of 5

Applicable Policy at Issue and Legal Standard

This matter originated from allegations of sexual harassment against Mr.

Smith filed by Ms. Muchiarone. The applicable TPS policy regarding the
prohibition of "sexual harassment" is found in Code ACAA which states in
pertinent part:

For purposes of this policy and the grievance

process, "sexual harassment" means conduct on the
basis of sex that satisfies one or more of the
following:

1. A District employee conditioning of an aid,

benefit, or service of the District on an
individual's participation in unwelcome
sexual conduct;

2. Unwelcome conduct determined by a

reasonable person to be so severe, pervasive
and objectively offensive that it effectively
denies a person equal access to the District's
education program, or activity; or

3. ***

Reviewing the allegations asserted by Ms. Muchiarone, it is clear that she is

claiming that Mr. Smith created a "hostile environment" (paragraph 2 above),
and not "quid pro quo" (paragraph 1 above).
In hostile work environment cases, courts consider the "work environment as
a whole" rather than individual allegations of harassment. Isolated comments
or acts are generally insufficient to create a hostile environment for Title VII
and R.C. 4112.01 et seq. purposes, unless taken as a whole they are so severe
and pervasive that they alter the victim's terms and conditions of employment.
Bowman v. Shawnee State Univ., 220 F.3d 456,463 (6th Cir.2000).

Given the standard outlined above, it is not possible to consider the "new
evidence" presented at the CDI, without considering the allegations and
evidence presented at the various stages throughout the entire
investigation/discipline process.

Relevant Factual Considerations

Much of what is determinative of whether "sexual harassment" has occurred

in a given circumstance is driven by the credibility of the individuals
Ms. Amy Natyshak, Esq.
February 6, 2024
Page 4 of5

involved. Typically, credibility determinations are dependent upon factors

such as consistency in alleged factual recitation, are the factual allegations
consistent or inconsistent with actions being truly "unwelcome", body
language, eye contact, etc. However, since the undersigned is conducting
solely a review of evidence that was previously presented, the credibility of
witnesses is not a consideration, except to the extent of the new evidence
presented at the CDI and the circumstances surrounding its presentation. Thus,
it is unnecessary here to reiterate all of the facts as established through the
CDI.

New Evidence and the CDI

The path that this matter has taken and the manner in which the evidence was
presented is unusual. That is, neither the original investigator of the
harassment charges, nor the Decision-Maker had the benefit of the text
messages that were presented during the CDI. Why that is the case is baffling.
The undersigned would expect that evidence showing a substantial familiarity
and somewhat flirtatious history that is inconsistent with the alleged victim
being uncomfortable or behavior being unwelcome seems critical at every
phase of the investigation/discipline process. Therefore, it is unclear why Mr.
Smith would not have presented that evidence from the original investigation
phase and through the CDI process.

Additionally, in reviewing the report of Ms. DeTano from the CDI, it is clear
that there was some confusion regarding whether presentation of new
evidence was appropriate at the CDI hearing. However, in my view, when one
considers Article XIV, Section C(3), any confusion should be cleared up.
Specifically, that language states that Ms. DeTano was authorized to "hear
testimony, examine witnesses, and review all relevant material pertaining to
the continuing disciplinary investigation". If it was intended that only
evidence previously submitted through the process could be considered, then
one would expect to see such limiting language. Thus I can only conclude that
new evidence was permissibly presented at the CDI.

It is important to note also that for purposes of this report and determination,
the text messages presented at the CDI are presumed authentic. Although the
surfacing of the messages appears to have been a surprise to Ms. DeTano and
Ms. Irving during the CDI, their existence was subject to cross examination,
and Ms. Irving could have had the alleged victim present at the hearing to
present any necessary rebuttal testimony regarding those messages. Given
this, the messages are being considered here at face value based on the content
of those messages.
Ms. Amy Natyshak, Esq.
February 6, 2024
Page 5 of5

Discussion and Determination

Given the limited scope of this engagement, a full discussion of all of the
evidence presented at the CDI seems unnecessary. That said, in my opinion,
the text messages considered in light of all of the other evidence is that Mr.
Smith did not engage in sexual harassment as it is defined in TPS Policy and
by law. While I understand that the particular inquiry at the CDI phase of the
process is supposed to be solely one of the level of "discipline" to be issued,
given the language of what is permitted to be presented at the CDI hearing, I
believe that it is not possible to recommend any level of discipline when
borderline exonerating evidence was presented. Simply put, I would not
recommend any discipline in light of the facts that have now been established.
Going one step further, and perhaps beyond the scope of my engagement, I
disagree with Ms. DeTano's recommendation of training. In my opinion, it is
not appropriate to mandate training or any other sort of remedial action in
circumstances where a basis for it does not exist (i.e. the sole premise of any
mandated training in· this matter is inappropriate conduct engaged in by Mr.
Smith - - which I do not believe exists here).

Please advise if anyone has any questions or concerns. Otherwise, thank you
for the opportunity to work with you and indirectly, TPS.

Very truly yours,

/rkm