Tri-C Professors Lawsuit

NAILAH K.
BYRD
CUYAHOGA COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
Court of Common Pleas
New Case Electronically Filed: COMPLAINT

November 23,2022 21:08
By: SUBODH CHANDRA 0069233
Confirmation Nbr. 2710660
DIANE GASTON, ET AL. CV 22 971748
vs.
Judge: NANCY A. FUERST
CUYAHOGA COMMUNITY COLLEGE, ET AL.
Pages Filed: 52
Electronically Filed 11/23/2022 21:08/ / CV 22 971748 / Confirmation Nbr. 2710660 / CLAJB

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO
Diane Gaston
15 White St.
Berea, OH 44017 Case No.
and Judge
Linda Lanier
652 Castle Blvd.
Akron, OH 44313
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Cuyahoga Community College

700 Carnegie Ave.
Cleveland, OH 44115
Alex Johnson
27050 Cedar Road, Apt. 418
Beachwood, OH 44112
Denise McCory
3646 Winchell Road
Shaker Heights, OH 44122
Terry Webb
14616 Reddington Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44137
Courtney Clarke
9791 Forestview Drive
Cleveland, OH 44121
Amy Parks
31493 Bishops Gate Circle
Westlake, OH 44145
David Kuntz
11258 Coventry Court
North Royalton, OH 44133
and
Electronically Filed 11/23/2022 21:08 / / CV 22 971748 / Confirmation Nbr. 2710660 / CLAJB

Page 1 of 48
Shari D. Brazile
3462 Edison Road
Cleveland Heights, OH 44121
Defendants.
Complaint with Jury Demand
Nature of Action
1. This is a civil-rights action brought under federal and state anti-discrimination-and-retaliation
laws including 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (First and Fourteenth Amendments); Title VI and Tide VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (retaliation in higher education and employment respectively), Ohio Rev.
Code § 4112, etseq., (Ohio employment retaliation); and civil liability for criminal acts and civil
intimidation under Ohio law.
2. When Plaintiffs Diane Gaston and Linda Lanier, tenured faculty members of Cuyahoga
Community College (“Tri-C”), opposed and spoke out against unethical and discriminatory practices
they discovered at the College, Defendant Alex Johnson (aided by and working in concert with
Defendants Denise McCory, Terry Webb, Courtney Clarke, Shari Brazile, Amy Parks, and David
Kuntz) spearheaded a vindictive and retaliatory conspiracy to tarnish their professional reputations
and degrade their working conditions. The practices Professors Gaston and Lanier opposed were
matters of public concern that included the public College’s racially discriminatory course-scheduling
decisions.
Parties
3. Plaintiff Professor Diane Gaston is a faculty member of Defendant Cuyahoga Community
College and resides in Cuyahoga County, Ohio.

Page 2 of 48
4. Plaintiff Professor Linda Lanier is a faculty member of Defendant Cuyahoga Community
College and resides in Summit County, Ohio.
5. Defendant Cuyahoga Community College (“Tri-C” or the “College”) is a public,
governmental higher-educational institution with four campuses throughout Cuyahoga County,
Ohio. The College currendy employs Professor Gaston, Professor Lanier, Defendant McCory,
Defendant Webb, Defendant Clarke, Defendant Parks, Defendant Kuntz, and Defendant Brazile,
formerly employed Defendant Johnson, and is vicariously liable for acts and omissions taken under
its customs, policies, or practices. Tri-C is also responsible for training and supervising its employees
in carrying out their duties in a lawful manner.
6. Defendant Alex Johnson was at all relevant times Tri-C’s president and acted under color of
state law. He resides in Cuyahoga County. He is sued in his personal capacity.
7. Defendant Denise McCory was at all relevant times the president of Tri-C’s Metropolitan
(“Metro”) campus and acted under state law. She resides in Cuyahoga County. She is sued in her
official and personal capacity.
8. Defendant Terry Webb was at all relevant times Tri-C’s assistant dean of counseling and
psychological services. Her resides in Cuyahoga County. He is sued in his official and personal
capacity.
9. Defendant Courtney Clarke was at all relevant times Tri-C’s the associate dean of social
sciences. She resides in Cuyahoga County. She is sued in her official and personal capacity.
10. Defendant Amy Parks was at all relevant times Tri-C’s dean of academic affairs. She resides
in Cuyahoga County. She is sued in her official and personal capacity.
11. Defendant David Kuntz was at all relevant times Tri-C’s executive vice president of
administration and finance. He resides in Cuyahoga County. He is sued in his official and personal
capacity.

Page 3 of 48
12. Defendant Shari Brazile was at all relevant times Tri-C’s manager of employee relations. She
resides in Cuyahoga County. She is sued in her official and personal capacity.
Jurisdiction and Venue
13. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants, who all conduct business and reside in
Cuyahoga County, Ohio.
14. Venue is proper because all parties reside, work, or conduct business in Cuyahoga County,
and the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims took place within this District.
Factual Background
Professors Gaston and Lanier are distinguished, tenured faculty members of

Cuyahoga Community College with spotless records.
15. Professor Gaston has been employed by Tri-C since August 2001. She is tenured and
currently serves as an associate professor of philosophy, humanities, and religious studies at Tri-C’s
Western campus.
16. Professor Lanier has been employed by Tri-C since January 2011. She is tenured and
currently serves as an assistant professor of counseling, psychological and access services at the
College’s Metro campus. In that role, she provides personal, academic, and career counseling to
current and prospective students.
17. Professors Gaston and Lanier have also served on many special committees for the College
and have participated in extra-curricular programs that benefit students and the community. In 2016,
Professor Lanier founded the Black Diamonds Women’s Initiative (“Black Diamonds”), a program
that promotes the success and well-being of African-American women by offering events and
resources focused on educational opportunities, career development, health and wellness, and
financial empowerment. Professors Gaston and Lanier served as co-chairs of Black Diamonds at all
relevant times.

Page 4 of 48
18. Neither Professor Gaston’s nor Professor Lanier’s ordinary or ad hoc duties include reporting
to the media, the College, or its administration on racial discrimination, or on retaliation for
opposing racial discrimination.
19. Neither Professor Gaston nor Lanier can recall ever having received a negative personnel
evaluation.
20. Throughout their tenure with Tri-C, Professor Gaston and Lanier have been formally
recognized for the quality of their work and commitment to student success. For example, Professor
Gaston has received the League for John & Suanne Rouche Innovation in Community College
Excellence Award and the Ralph M. Besse Excellence in Teaching Award. She was also recognized
by Tri-C’s Division of Academic Affairs for her role in developing a specialized course for first-year
students. In March 2020, Professor Lanier was featured in the “Tri-C Times” for her achievement in
cultivating student success and supporting African-American women.
21. Before May 2021 (when they were disciplined for engaged in legally protected activity)
neither Professor Gaston nor Professor Lanier had been subject to disciplinary action.
22. But things quickly changed course when they identified College course-scheduling policies
that disproportionately affected minority students at Tri-C’s Metro campus, and sounded the alarm
with the administration and the media.
Professors Gaston and Lanier send several emails reporting concerns about racially
discriminatory course-scheduling practices to Tri-C administrators.
23. In February 2020, Tri-C, like other colleges, was forced to replace traditional in-person
classes with remote instruction to limit the spread of COVID-19. It wasn’t until 2021 that Tri-C
resumed offering in-person classes on its campuses.
24. In January 2021, Tri—C publicly posted its course schedule for the upcoming fall semester,
with registration scheduled to open on March 22, 2021.

Page 5 of 48
25. In the fall 2021 schedule, there were significant disparities in the in-person classes offered at
Tri-C’s Metro campus compared with the College’s suburban campuses. Specifically,
• There were fewer introductory-level classes offered in-person at the Metro campus than
at suburban campuses (meaning that new Metro campus students had fewer
opportunities to take in-person courses); and
• There were no philosophy or religious studies classes offered in-person at the Metro
campus.
26. Tri-C’s Metro campus is located in downtown Cleveland and has a higher concentration of
African-American students than the College’s suburban campuses.
27. Professors Gaston and Lanier were concerned about the impact the proposed schedule
would have on Metro campus’s African-American students, because they statistically don’t perform
well in online courses. They were especially concerned about the impact the lack of in-person course
options would have inner city African-American students, many of whom may not have the
resources needed to succeed in a virtual learning environment (e.g., a reliable computer and
broadband internet) or travel to suburban campuses for in-person instruction.
28. Cleveland Metropolitan School District (“CMSD”) officials shared these concerns. In
January 2021, Defendants Parks and Webb, and Professor Lanier, met with administrators from a
CMSD school to discuss student enrollment. During this meeting, they discussed how poorly
CMSD students had performed in online courses, and their belief that this had led to decreased
enrollment numbers in the spring 2021 semester.
29. Even after this meeting, Tri-C did not revise its proposed schedule.
30. Beginning in February 2021, as explained below. Professors Gaston and Lanier repeatedly
reported to every level of Tri-Cs administration their concern that the schedule was racially
discriminatory.

Page 6 of 48
31. On February 25, 2021, Professor Gaston contacted Defendant McCory and Provost Karen
Miller as well as other Tri-C faculty and administrators to alert them and “voice [her] strong
opposition” to the decision to remove philosophy and religious studies courses on Metro’s campus.
She asked, “How is it in the best interest of Metro students to eliminate all [in-person] options and
the popular and needed [introductory philosophy course]?”
32. On March 1, 2021, Professor Lanier contacted Defendants McCory, Parks, and Webb, as
well as other Tri-C faculty and administrators to highlight the disparity in the in-person course
offerings between the Metro and suburban campuses and the impact that would have on African-
American students. She explained that, according to research and best practices, the schedule was
“counter-productive for a path to success for the typical Metro student” and pointed out that the
East and West campus schedules (which included more in-person, night, and weekend offerings)
were more tailored to student achievement.
33. These reports were effectively dismissed:
• In her response to Professor Lanier’s email, Provost Miller blamed the decision to
remove Metro campus’s in-person philosophy and religious-studies courses on low
enrollment numbers and a lack of staffing, citing deference to the opinions of her
“counterparts.” Professor Lanier rebutted these explanations, noting that the courses
had not been eliminated from other campuses and that she and other faculty in her
department had offered to assist with staffing. The provost agreed that they “needfed] to
focus on course and modality diversity” but otherwise failed to address Professor
Lanier’s specific concerns about the impact of the lack of access to in-person instruction
on Metro-campus students.
• Defendant Parks acknowledged Professor Lanier’s “thoughts on this important topic”
but failed to address her concerns about the disparity between the in-person courses

Page 7 of 48
offered at the Metro campus compared with the suburban campuses, and the impact it
would have on African-American students. Defendant Parks instead offered a vague
series of the considerations that had gone into the course-scheduling decisions (e.g., the
new development of remote courses, a decline in overall enrollment, and a need to
balance the offerings across campuses) and assured Professor Lanier that Tri-C was
including in-person offerings “for students who have that preference.” Defendant Parks
made it clear that Professor Lanier should not raise the issue again, stating “[Defendant
Webb] and I are also in regular contact about the schedule, so he can keep me informed
about areas of concern as they arise.”
• Upon information and belief, Defendant McCory (as the Metro campus’s vice president)
participated in, and had influence over, these course-scheduling decisions. Despite
having been copied on these emails, she responded to neither professor’s reports.
34. In a March 4, 2021 email to several administrators including Defendants McCory, Webb,
Parks, and Johnson, Professor Lanier reiterated her concerns about the schedule, and the
administration’s lack of response to her reports. In this email, Professor Lanier even acknowledged
the possibility that she would face retaliation for making this report. She wrote:
• “The equity concerns in my email are not new and have been voiced consistentiy by my
colleagues, CMSD personnel, and other community members, yet ignored.”
• “To dismiss my concerns, and systematically ignore the unfair and detrimental practices
impacting students of color is gravely concerning to me. While others may not speak out
regarding this issue for fear of retaliation via professional isolation, I will continue to
voice my concerns to you and the community who are aware of how Metro scheduling
policies are negatively impacting achievement for students of color.”

Page 8 of 48
• “The continued unequal and inequitable scheduling at Metro is structural and that is the
concern I presented to you and my colleagues [;] our students deserve a fair chance.”
35. On March 9, 2021, Professor Lanier met with Defendant McCory, Defendant Parks, and the
Metro-campus deans where she again voiced her concerns regarding the negative impact the lack of
in-person course offerings on the Metro campus would have on students of color. During that
meeting, everyone expressed agreement that Professor Lanier’s concerns were valid. Defendant
Parks blamed the lack of in-person course offerings on the faculty, alleging that nobody was willing
to teach those courses. This explanation was illogical because the deans control the schedule and
faculty can only elect to teach courses that Tri-C offers.
36. Having received no assurance that their concerns would be addressed, Professors Gaston
and Lanier elevated their expressions on these issues of public concern about discrimination well
above their immediate supervisor by co-authoring an email to Tri-C’s president Defendant Johnson
on March 17, 2021. In that email, they offered a detailed basis for their belief that the schedule was
discriminatory, explained that this was a matter of public concern, and urged him to take action.
They wrote:
• “We are reaching out to you in a desperate attempt to address an emergent situation at
the Metropolitan Campus. We have both individually contacted administrators before
taking this extraordinary step. Our concern is the removal of essentially all on-ground
courses at the Metropolitan campus for fall 2021.”
• “Since [] data shows that face-to-face instruction is the most effective and preferred
method of learning, it is inexplicable that Metro campus, which serves the greatest
population of Black students, is removing the option to take on-ground classes. The fact
that East, West, and Westshore campuses are offering considerable numbers of on
ground courses]] reflects their understanding of student-centered learning. What is

Page 9 of 48
concerning is this exclusion of on-ground scheduling is detrimental to the most
underserved population. Metro [-] campus students are the most under[-]resourced, and
least desiring of online offerings.”
• “Because of the obvious inequity and disparity related to Metro scheduling we are
appealing to you to intervene. As the President of the college with tremendous influence
in the community, we are hoping you will quiet the concerns voiced by local
stakeholders, such as CMSD [Cleveland Municipal School District], the Urban League,
and others.”
Professors Gaston and Lanier experience disparate treatment and report it to their
supervisors. Again, their concerns are effectively dismissed.
37. In addition to, and in conjunction with, her reports regarding Tri-C’s racially disparate
schedule. Professor Lanier raised concerns that she was being treated differently than her
department colleagues on the basis of her race, gender, and advocacy for African-American
students.
38. In a March 12, 2021, department meeting. Defendant Webb reported that Metro students
were “doing very well” in remote courses, supposedly evidenced by the fact that they had enrolled in
them (when they had no other choice). This broad and unsupported generalization was an obvious
attempt to discredit Professor Lanier and disparage her efforts to expose Tri-C’s discriminatory
course-scheduling practices in front of her colleagues.
39. After that meeting, Professor Lanier contacted Defendant Webb to express her concern that
the “tone and tenor” of Defendant Webb’s comments at this meeting, along with other recent
decisions and actions, constituted a pattern of “disparate treatment” against her, dating back to Fall
2020. She reported that:

Page 10 of 48
• On March 4, 2021, Defendant Webb sent her an email regarding faculty contracts for
summer 2021. Normally, this type of information would have been sent either to both
Professor Lanier and her department co-chair (who joindy serve as the administration’s
point of contact for the department) or to everyone in her department. The fact that
Defendant Webb took the unprecedented step of sending this email to Professor Lanier
individually suggested that she was being intentionally omitted from group
communications to the department, and that her ability to accept a summer contract may
be “in question.”
• Defendant Webb had denied the opportunity to incorporate time to work on Black
Diamonds into Professor Lanier’s schedule, even though she had always been allowed to
do so before.
• Her department’s scheduling managers had assigned her to a less-favorable appointment
schedule than the other counselors. Specifically, she was assigned to take more scheduled
appointments than other counselors, and not given any time slots for walk-in
appointments or e-advising, which are more flexible and less demanding than scheduled
appointments. This burdensome schedule made it difficult for her to respond to emails
from students and colleagues during the day.
• Defendant Webb denied her request to schedule, one day per week, her lunch break at
the end of the day (even though a white-male colleague was allowed to take lunch at the
end of the day on every day of the week).
• Defendant Webb denied her request to teach a class at MetroHealth Hospital, and
instead handed the course to a less-qualified, non-tenured professor. Defendant Webb
did this in violation of a provision in Tri-C’s collective-bargaining agreement with the

Page 11 of 48
American Association of University Professors that granted tenured faculty the right of
first refusal to teach courses in their discipline.
• The managers in charge of scheduling were giving her an unfairly high workload
compared to the other counselors, including significantly more in-person, scheduled
appointments.
40. Later that month. Professor Lanier met with Defendant Webb and the supervisor above him
to discuss in more detail this unfair treatment against her. During the meeting, Defendant Webb
attempted to defend his actions by distancing himself from the decision-making. He said that
Professor Lanier was assigned a less-flexible schedule because she was the “most requested”
counselor, and that he “was told” that the Black Diamonds Initiative is not a college event (and
therefore she was not afforded time to plan or organize the upcoming Black Diamonds conference).
He offered no explanation for other concerns Professor Lanier raised; nor did he indicate that he
would address them with the administration.
41. Professor Gaston also experienced and reported unfair treatment regarding her workload
and compensation, which arose shortly after she had reported concerns about Tri-C’s Fall 2021
schedule.
42. Upon information and belief, in March 2021, Defendant Clarke (Professor Gaston’s
immediate supervisor) directed or allowed one of Professor Gaston’s white colleagues to take credit
and receive compensation for work Professor Gaston had done by removing Professor Gaston’s
name and replacing it with her own.
43. Professor Gaston was thus denied just compensation for her labor in addition to the
indignity of having her work unfairly attributed to a white colleague.
44. On March 25, 2021, Defendant Clarke asked Professor Gaston to complete additional work
related to the project for which Professor Gaston had been denied credit and compensation in favor

Page 12 of 48
of her white colleague. Professor Gaston expressed concern, because she had been denied credit and
compensation for the work she had already done. In response to Professor Gaston’s concerns,
Defendant Clarke promised to ensure that Professor Gaston “receivefd] credit and compensation
for completing the work” but did not otherwise address the disparate treatment Professor Gaston
reported.
45. Defendant Clarke’s assurances proved hollow when, on May 4, 2021, she emailed Professor
Gaston to inform her that she would only be offered unpaid “service credits” in exchange for her
work on the project. Faculty members are contractually required to earn a certain number of service
credits by doing extracurricular work for the school and/or community, independent of the required
credits for their regular duties. Because Professor Gaston had already completed her requisite service
credits for the year, this effectively meant she was being asked to do this work for no compensation
or personal benefit.
46. Despite the uptick in disparate treatment against them, and valid concerns that they would
experience further acts of retaliation as a result of challenging the treatment. Professors Gaston and
Lanier persisted in their efforts to advocate for the Metro campus’s African-American students by
speaking out about Tri-C’s discriminatory Fall 2021 schedule.
Professors Gaston and Lanier voice concerns to a local news station about the inequity of
the fall course offerings at the College’s Metro campus.
47. On May 21, 2021, Professors Gaston and Lanier were interviewed by Michelle Nix of
WOIO Channel 19 News, a Cleveland-area news outiet. The investigation was part of the station’s
“Next 400” series, which examines structural racism, and the challenges faced by and achievements
of African-Americans. This particular news segment, “Is a return to higher education after Covid
putting up barriers for minority students?” focused on the challenges.
48. During this interview. Professors Gaston and Lanier voiced their concern for the lack of
access African-American students had to in-person courses on Tri-C’s Metro campus. A video

Page 13 of 48
recording of the report is attached and incorporated as Exhibit 1, and a full transcript is attached
and incorporated as Exhibit 2. Professor Gaston’s and Professor Lanier’s statements included:
• Lanier: “The students at Metro, do not, by our own data, do well in a virtual, online
environment. Online courses are the highest courses—the highest failure rate . .. We
know who is going to be hurt the most. First of all, students of color, students who lack
technology, it’s poor students. Out eastern campus began in January offering more on
ground campus, which is up in [the Richmond/Highland Hills] area. And I thought that
was a good step. I thought we would be following them.”
• Gaston: “Our motto is ‘Tri—C is where futures begin.’ It doesn’t line up with that motto
if certain students do not have the same opportunities, the same access.”
49. Neither Professor Gaston nor Professor Lanier stated that they were speaking on behalf of
Tri-C. They were not. They are not administrators. Nor did any administrator ask them to speak on
the College’s behalf. Nor had either ever spoken on the College’s behalf to any media, ever. They
were speaking as private citizens.
50. The concerns they raised related to the impact of COVID-19 on educational issues that
directly affect the African-American population in Cleveland, Ohio, and specifically how Tri-C’s
practice of offering fewer in-person courses at the Metro campus harmed minority students. These
are matters of public concern.
51. Their report in no way hindered Tri-C’s operations or legitimate goals or mission. In fact,
their speech was intended to improve those operations and that mission.
Defendant Johnson uses a public townhall meeting to chastise Professors Gaston and
Lanier for their participation in the Channel 19 report.
52. On or about May 21, 2021, Tri—C invited all students, faculty, staff, and administrators to
attend a May 24, 2021 virtual “townhall” meeting. The College sent an unusually high volume of

Page 14 of 48
emails announcing this townhall. This meeting was also open to the public and promoted on Tri-C’s
website.
53. During that special virtual townhall meeting, three days after the news report aired,
Defendant Johnson, then Tri-C’s president, publicly chastised Professors Gaston and Lanier for
their speech in the Channel 19 interview. This was the first salvo in what would become a barrage of
retaliation against them. A video recording Defendant Johnson’s townhall is attached as Exhibit 3.
54. Just over four minutes into his remarks, Defendant Johnson excoriated Professors Gaston
and Lanier for voicing on the Channel 19 “Next 400” interviews what he characterized as
“disturbing and unsubstantiated ... perspectives.”
55. Upon information and belief, Defendant Johnson referred to Professors Gaston and Lanier
by name. Regardless, whose interviews he was talking about quickly became apparent to those
watching.
56. Despite some audio issues, enough of Defendant Johnson’s tirade remained audible for
listeners. His remarks included:
• Allegations that Professor Gaston’s and Professor Lanier’s statements were false (despite
emails among members of the Integrated Communications Office and various
administrators that same day indicating that they could not verify that the professors’
statements were inaccurate).
• An apology for the fact Professors Gaston and Lanier had participated in the interview,
and a solemn vow to “rectify” it.
• Statements seemingly intended to chill and impose a prior restraint on the speech of
everyone attending the townhall (which included not only faculty and staff but also
students, alumni, donors, and members of the press):

Page 15 of 48
o “[W]e just cannot allow these types of things to take place at an institution where
we continue to regard ourselves ... as committed to students in the community
in the way we have, and the progress that we’ve made over the last decade was, is
phenomenal. And I would compare that... progress across the board, in terms
of students and other ... institutions as well.”
o “I must remind all of you that when you hear from the press, that that [sic\ is to
be reported to Integrated Communications, for a lot of reasons ... that will serve
you well, so ... in the future it is our expectation ... for all of you.”
o “And then of course our admonishment to all of you that if you’re contacted by
media, um, first make sure that you are ... involved with [the Integrated
Communications Office].”
57. Professors Gaston and Lanier are unaware of any prior instance where Tri-C’s president
publicly admonished a faculty member for any reason, let alone for advocating for African-American
students.
Following Defendant Johnson’s rebuke, Professors Gaston and Lanier immediately endure
additional retaliation.
58. Upon information and belief. Defendant Johnson directed Defendants McCory and Brazile
to initiate disciplinary action against Professors Gaston and Lanier, swifdy making good on his
promise “rectify” the problem of Professors Gaston and Lanier’s media interviews.
59. On May 24, 2022, Professor Lanier received an email from Defendant McCory (who had
copied Professor Lanier’s direct supervisors and union representative) with an invitation to attend a
virtual meeting two days later. There was no text in the body of the email, but the subject line read,
“Re: Channel 19 Interview.”
60. Professor Lanier asked Defendant McCory to explain the meeting’s purpose and content,
but Defendant McCory did not respond.

Page 16 of 48
61. The union representative informed Professor Lanier that he didn’t know the specific issues
would be discussed, but understood that “they” (meaning the administration) believed she had
“violated the Employee Code of Conduct.” He also pointed out the unusual nature of this cryptic
meeting notice, stating that “[ujsually when there is an investigation, a letter is sent to the faculty
member outlining the issue.”
62. Professor Lanier immediately contacted an attorney, who agreed to represented her in the
matter. Her attorney contacted Defendant McCory the following day to request a written
explanation of the purpose and postponement of the meeting until Professor Lanier had a chance to
prepare a response. Defendant McCory electronically “cancelled” the meeting, but did not otherwise
respond to Professor Lanier or her attorney.
63. Defendant Johnson’s direct admonishment made it clear that Professors Gaston and Lanier
had been effectively blacklisted. This invited, if not directed, Tri—C faculty and administration to
participate in further acts of retaliation.
64. In the days following the virtual townhall. Professors Gaston and Lanier were immediately
subject to adverse actions, as described below.
65. Shortly after the townhall. Professor Lanier received a call from two colleagues encouraging
her to step down from her position in as the co-chair of the counseling department. They told her
that Defendant Johnson’s public admonishment had compromised her ability to lead the efforts of
the department, and that by stepping down she could save herself the embarrassment of facing an
inevitable vote of non-confidence. Professor Lanier thus was forced to “resign” under compulsion
in a clear act of retaliation for her participation in the Channel 19 interview. In the dynamics of
employment at the College, this was a foreseeable consequence of Defendant Johnson’s public
castigation.

Page 17 of 48
66. The day after the townhall. Defendant Clarke directed Professor Gaston to update the
curriculum for three courses—a burdensome task that no administrator had ever assigned to a
faculty member, and that had traditionally been undertaken on a voluntary basis. Because Professor
Gaston had never even taught the courses she was assigned to work on, and Tri-C had not
established guidelines accounting for changes to the state’s requirements, this process was especially
time-consuming and difficult to complete. To assign three courses under those circumstances was
cruel—and Defendant Clarke demanded it by a functionally impossible deadline.
67. Adding insult to injury. Defendant Clarke forced Professor Gaston to forfeit the courses she
had planned to teach that summer so she could complete this task. Professor Gaston received the
same rate of pay for the semester as she would have for teaching those courses, even though she had
to work a significandy greater number of hours.
Professors Gaston and Lanier are formally disciplined for their speech to Channel 19.
68. On June 16,2021, Defendant Brazile issued Professors Gaston and Lanier each a “Notice of
Pre-Disciplinary Hearing” setting forth the policies they allegedly violated by participating in the
Channel 19 interview and the date of a hearing at which they would be forced to defend themselves.
69. Professors Gaston and Lanier were each charged with supposedly violating:
• The employee code of conduct, which states, “Employees must exhibit a high degree of
personal integrity at all time [w]. This requires sincere respect for the rights of others,
and refraining from any behavior that might be harmful to oneself, other members of
the College community, or the college. Employees must also refrain from behavior that
would cast the College in an unfavorable light in view of the communities served by the
College.”
• The College’s public-affairs-and-information policy, which states, “The Office of Public
Affairs and information shall be responsible for communicating to the public through all

Page 18 of 48
available media to ensure that the community has a positive image of the College, and
that positions and statements of the College are presented accurately and consistendy.”
• The collective-bargaining agreement between Tri-C and the American Association of
University Professors, which states, “Because the public may judge the profession and
the College by his utterances, a faulty member should at all times strive to be accurate,
exercise appropriate restraint and show respect of the opinions of others. It is of special
importance that in making such utterances, a faculty member indicates that he is not a
spokesman for the college.”
70. These charges were baseless, violated Professors Gaston and Lanier’s well-established First
Amendment free-speech rights as public employees, and were retaliatory.
71. Upon information and belief, Tri-C had never disciplined anyone other than Professors
Gaston and Lanier for violating the policies referenced in these notices.
72. During their decades of service for the College, Professors Gaston and Lanier had
previously participated as private citizens in media interviews, none of which had resulted in
disciplinary action being taken against them. Neither professor had been asked to speak on behalf of
the College to the media.
73. Upon information and belief, two other Tri-C professors also spoke with Channel 19 in
connection with this story, but their interviews did not appear in the final four-minute video. None
of them were disciplined for their participation.
74. The allegation regarding Professor Gaston’s and Professor Lanier’s failure to speak with the
“Office of Public Affairs” before their private-citizen interview was based on a non-existent policy.
• Neither Professor Gaston nor Professor Lanier had ever been told that they needed
permission before speaking with the media, nor made aware of this “policy.” Nor would
such an overbroad policy be constitutional, because each had and has a well-established

Page 19 of 48
right to speak as private citizens on matters of public concern, even concerning matters
they learned about through their Tri-C employment.1
• During an arbitration hearing on April 26, 2022, Tri-C’s vice president of the Integrated
Communications Department conceded that the policy cited in the notice doesn’t say
that employees are required to come to her department before speaking with the media,
and that doing so is more of a general “practice.”
• Upon information and belief, at no point during the disciplinary process and subsequent
appeals was the College able to produce a copy of any policy that actually requires
employees to receive permission from any department before speaking with the media.
Nor, as stated above, would such an overbroad policy be constitutional.
75. Professors Gaston and Lanier were charged with representing Tri-C during the interview in
violation of the collective-bargaining agreement, despite neither having told the reporter they were
speaking on the College’s behalf. Nor did the Channel 19 report claim or suggest so. No reasonable
viewer would have thought that these critics of the government were speakingfor the government.
• Professor Gaston was invited to speak as a Tri-C alumna, and specifically told the
interviewer to contact the vice president of Tri-C’s Integrated Communications
Department for the College’s position on the issues.
• Professor Lanier similarly directed the reporter to speak to Defendant McCory regarding
the College’s policies and plans for course scheduling. The interviewer emailed
Defendant McCory on May 14, 2021 requesting the administration’sposition on the issue of
the fall and spring 2021 schedules.
1 See Lane v. Franks, 537 U.S. 228, 235-36 (2014)

Page 20 of 48
76. The College used these baseless allegations as part of its scheme to punish Professors
Gaston and Lanier (and send a chilling message to other faculty) by tarnishing their previously
spodess employment records and forcing them to expend significant time and money defending
themselves.
77. Tri-C brought these charges in violation of its progressive-discipline policy, which requires
verbal counseling and a written reprimand before bringing an action for suspension or probation.
78. Professor Gaston’s and Professor Lanier’s pre-disciplinary hearings were held on or about
June 23, 2021.
79. Defendant McCory took the lead in these meetings. She explained the bogus charges, placing
Professors Gaston and Lanier in the position of having to “defend” themselves.
80. During these hearings. Defendant McCory contested neither the truth nor accuracy of
Professor Gaston’s and Professor Lanier’s statements to Channel 19. Instead, Defendant McCory
argued that discipline was warranted because of the context in which the professors’ speech was
made. The College took the position that the professors’ statements, in the context of an
investigative report that focuses on systemic racism, implied that the fall 2021 course schedule was
intentionally designed to disadvantage African-American students and therefore “placed the college
in an unfavorable light.” In short. Professors Gaston and Lanier were being subjected to discipline
for having dared criticized the government.
81. On August 6, 2021, Professors Gaston and Lanier were officially found to have violated Tri-
C’s policies, and were ordered to serve an unpaid three-day suspension.

Page 21 of 48
82. This discipline was imposed, even though:
• There was no evidence that the professors’ comments were unsubstantiated, inaccurate,
or misleading (although they would have had a right to their opinions and to be
mistaken).
• Neither was advised that faculty members must speak with the Integrated
Communications Department (nor any Tri-C department) before speaking with the
media.
• There is no policy or union contract provision that requires faculty to waive their free-
speech rights. If anything, principles of academic freedom protect free speech.
83. Tri-C has issued coundess statements in support of diversion, equity, and inclusion, and
claims to be a champion of equity. Professors Gaston and Lanier believed in that mission and
appealed to the administration repeatedly to stand behind the reputation it had cultivated. When
their pleas were ignored, they spoke publicly to the media as concerned citizens on this matter of
public concern. They were punished for their speech—not because it was false, but because it was
not in line with the image Tri-C as a government institution (and Defendant Johnson, in particular,
as a government official) sought to portray to the public.
84. Upon information and belief, no faculty or staff member had ever been charged with any
violations of these policies for having made a public media appearance (including past appearances
where faculty members were extremely critical of the administration).
85. On August 9, 2021, Professors Gaston and Lanier filed an administrative grievance,
challenging the decision.

Page 22 of 48
As Professors Gaston and Lanier continue to defend themselves against the disciplinary
order, the retaliation crusade against them continues unabated.
86. Following the townhall, Defendant Johnson continued spread vitriol as part of his personal
vendetta against Professors Gaston and Lanier, effectively ensuring that they remained ostracized
and subject to direct hostility and retaliation.
87. Upon information and belief, Defendant Johnson held a meeting in or about June 2021 with
several male African-American faculty and staff members, including Defendant Webb during which
he made disparaging remarks about African-American women, and Professor Lanier in particular.
One of the attendees, was concerned about these inappropriate comments and thus reported it to
Defendant Webb and alerted Professor Lanier.
88. When Professors Gaston and Lanier returned for the fall 2021 semester Defendant
Johnson’s expressed animus against them had turned them into persona non grata. They received fewer
emails from colleagues than they had in the past, and the emails they sent went unanswered. On
campus, colleagues would pretend not to see them or quickly change direction to avoid passing them
in the hall. All had apparendy gotten the message: “Do not engage with Professor Gaston or
Professor Lanier.”
89. Professor Gaston’s and Lanier’s were also removed from email listservs, cutting off access to
necessary communications, and intentionally “blind copied” on the emails so they would not be
included on group responses.

Page 23 of 48
90. As a direct result of this widespread ostracization, Professors Gaston and Lanier were denied
professional opportunities and special assignments, and constructively removed from assignments
that professors had previously led or been involved in. For example:
• Professor Gaston had been part of a committee that produced a textbook for first-year
students, and had been heavily involved in developing all four editions (including solely
developing the accompanying course webpage that is still used by many Tri-C
instructors). She had even been recognized by the College for her achievements in
connection with this work, as noted above. In or around 2021 the committee began
working on revisions to the textbook, but Professor Gaston was excluded from this
process because nobody informed her they were doing so.
• In April 2021, Professor Lanier began working with Shaw High School to establish an
educational program for parents and children. But after Defendant Johnson’s townhall
Professor Lanier suddenly no longer received emails from the members of the
committee that had formed to implement the program, and thus was excluded from
working on a project that she had initially proposed.
• Professor Lanier was similarly excluded from working on other committees of which she
had previously been a part, including the Success Council, the Transfer Counsel, and the
High Tech Academy committee.
91. Professors Gaston and Lanier were also persistently subject to unfair treatment and forced
to accept unfavorable working conditions because of Defendant Johnson’s public admonishment.
92. Further retaliatory actions against Professor Gaston included, but were not limited to:
a. Defendant Clarke’s failure to process or acknowledge her requests for time off.
b. Defendant Clarke’s failure to acknowledge extracurricular service credits Professor
Gaston had earned. Because these credits are required as part of Professor Gaston’s

Page 24 of 48
contract, an apparent failure to complete them within the required time could result in
disciplinary action.
c. Delayed processing of reimbursements. Upon information and belief, this was a
coordinated effort between Defendants Clarke, McCory, and Kuntz.
d. Increased oversight and scrutiny over her work (such as Defendant Clarke repeatedly
forcing Professor Gaston to defend her implementation of Tri-C’s attendance policy).
e. Interference with her work. Throughout 2021-22 various administrators had granted
themselves access to the website Professor Gaston uses to communicate with students
and share course materials, which allowed them to view, make changes to, and even
delete critical information Professor Gaston needed to do her job. This was done
without Professor Gaston’s permission, and without giving her any notice or explanation
for this unusual practice.
f. Advancing bogus grade disputes brought by students. When students complain about
their grades, which is not uncommon, it is up to the professor’s supervisor to investigate
the complaint and assess its merit. When the supervisor “advances” the dispute, the
professor must defend their decision in a formal hearing before a panel of their
colleagues. In Professor Gaston’s first 20 years of service at Tri-C, she had only had one
grade dispute advanced in this way. In 2021, Defendant Clarke advanced three meridess
grade disputes brought against Professor Gaston. Among these baseless disputes was a
student’s argument that he should have received an A in the course (despite having
skipped an exam!) because he supposedly misunderstood the grading scale provided in
the course syllabus. Although each of these disputes were ultimately resolved in
Professor Gaston’s favor (finding that her decision was justified), this required Professor

Page 25 of 48
Gaston to expend significant time and energy defending herself and subjected her to the
humiliation of being questioned by colleagues who had shunned her.
g. Failing to acknowledge her earned sabbatical. Traditionally, whenever a professor is
awarded a sabbatical, it is acknowledged during a Board of Trustees meeting, and
included in a list of awardees that is sent by email to the faculty senate. Upon
information and belief. Defendant Johnson directed administrators not to acknowledge
any earned sabbaticals during the Board of Trustees meeting and remove Professor
Gaston’s name from the email to the faculty senate. Professor Gaston thus was denied
the public celebration, including a party and congratulatory emails from colleagues, that
normally accompanies this traditional academic honor.
h. Denying her the opportunity transfer her to the Metro campus (despite several
administrators’ earlier assurances that she would be placed there once the position was
vacant). It was well-known that Professor Gaston, as a graduate of Tri-C’s Metro
campus, desired to someday return to the campus in her faculty position. In late spring
2021, the sole full-time faculty member in the philosophy, humanities, and religious
studies department on Tri-C’s Metro campus announced her retirement. Professor
Gaston, one of five full-time faculty in that department on West’s campus and the most
senior faculty member in the department overall, had been assured that she would be
allowed to transfer once the Metro-campus position was open. Among those who had
given oral approval for her transfer were Defendants Clark and McCory. In fact.
Professor Lanier didn’t even need approval to transfer, and would have been able to do
so once the position was “posted” in their system. But the position was never posted,
and instead has been left unfilled to prevent Professor Gaston from moving to the
position everyone knew she wanted.

Page 26 of 48
93. Retaliatory actions against Professor Lanier included, but were not limited to:
• Denying her the opportunity to take on special assignments. After Defendant Johnson’s
townhall. Professor Lanier was no longer included on emails inviting faculty to join
committees or participate in special projects. Upon information and belief, this was an
intentional, coordinated effort by Defendants McCory and Webb to isolate Professor
Lanier. This type of committee work is important because, even when the positions are
independently not paid (such as grant-funded stipends), they improve the professor’s
status within the campus community.
• Isolating her from new employees. Defendant Webb denied her the opportunity to train
new part-time counselors when, based on her seniority and experience, she should have
been the one training them. Instead, a part-time counselor was assigned to train the new
employees. Defendant Webb also declined to so much as introduce the new employees
to Professor Lanier.
• Removing from her position as the Tri-C basketball team’s counseling liaison. Upon
information and belief Defendant Webb removed Professor Lanier from this position,
and later ensured that none of the female basketball players were scheduled with
different counselors for their appointments. This was particularly damaging because of
her success and relationships with them.
• Defendant Webb continuing to allow the department managers to assign her a less-
favorable schedule compared to her colleagues.
• Defendant Webb forcing her to work and meet with students in isolated rooms
(including male students, and students who were “mentally unstable”);

Page 27 of 48
• Defendant Webb failing to respond to work-related questions, such as the need for her
to have access to necessary software and a working laptop, making it difficult to do her
job;
• Defendants McCory and Webb failing to respond to her requests for clarification about
the requirements of a summer contract, forcing her to turn down the opportunity to
work during the summer 2021 semester;
• Defendants Brazile and McCory failing to timely respond to her FMLA request when
her husband needed triple-bypass surgery, forcing her to contact the union direcdy.
• Defendant Kuntz authorizing the three-day suspension to be deducted from her pay
twice and interfering with her attempts to resolve the issue with the finance department.
94. In a series of acts designed to retaliate against both Professor Gaston and Professor Lanier,
Tri-C administrators (at Defendant Johnson’s direction) interfered with the Black Diamonds
Conference they co-chaired. The event that was scheduled to take place on October 15, 2021. Just
weeks before the event was scheduled, the College rescinded approval to hold the event on-campus,
citing challenges with COVID-19 and staffing, even though similarly sized events were held without
issue around that time. Upon information and belief. Defendant Johnson and Defendant McCory
directed the relevant administrators to do so.
95. The College also failed to timely pay conference vendors and the keynote speaker (including
blaming this failure on Professor Lanier by falsely accusing her of improperly signing a contract
without consulting the College’s legal department). Upon information and belief. Defendant Kuntz
directed staff to delay processing these payments.

Page 28 of 48
The disciplinary decisions against Professors Gaston and Lanier are ultimately reversed,
after Defendants subjected the professors to a grueling year of appeals processes.
96. Professors Gaston and Lanier spent more than a year defending themselves against Tri-C’s
baseless disciplinary actions through a series of administrative grievance hearings, which required
them to expend significant time and resources (including legal fees and costs).
97. Despite the overwhelming evidence that Professors Gaston and Lanier violated no policies,
Tri-C refused to reverse the order. Professors Gaston and Lanier were thus to forced undergo every
step of the grievance proceeding because Tri-C refused to skip to the final arbitration process,
despite its clear intention to uphold the decision regardless of what evidence was presented.
98. In one of the many denials of Professor Gaston’s and Professor Lanier’s grievances,
Defendant Kuntz stated his belief the corrective action taken against Professors Gaston and Lanier
was not severe enough. Defendant Kuntz, as the vice president for the finance department, should not
have even been involved in the grievance process, which traditionally was left to the campus deans
and the provost. Upon information and belief, provost Defendant Miller refused to participate in
this retaliatory action and Defendants Johnson and McCory directed Defendant Kuntz to step into
this role.
99. During arbitration, Tri-C took the position that the discipline issued against Professors
Gaston and Lanier was “a measured response” to their misconduct and that it was “really part of a
corrective action principles so that it is clear to Professor Gaston and Professor Lanier that they
handled this inappropriately and shouldn’t have done that.”
100. On June 2, 2022—the day Defendant Johnson was scheduled to testify and be cross
examined in an arbitration hearing—Tri-C suddenly granted the professors’ grievances. The College
agreed to remove the discipline from their personnel files and award them back pay for their three-
day suspensions.

Page 29 of 48
101. The arbitrator nevertheless opined that Tri-C had admitted it made a mistake by disciplining
Professors Gaston and Lanier, noting that the evidence presented in the arbitration process
demonstrated that Tri-C “did not have just cause” to issue discipline against them.
102. Although their employment records were ultimately cleared, the year spent defending
themselves through the prolonged appeals process caused Professors Gaston and Lanier significant
financial and personal hardship.
103. Professor Gaston was scheduled to complete her doctorate degree from Ashland University
in 2021. But she was effectively forced to withdraw as a direct result of the extreme emotional
distress, time commitments, and legal costs associated with the drawn-out grievance and arbitration
process. Because she is not able to rejoin the cohort to complete her degree, she has effectively lost
two years of tuition expenses she had paid. Additionally, because she did not obtain her doctorate
degree as expected, she is not able to reach the maximum compensation in her final years of
employment, which drastically diminishes her retirement package.
104. Defendant Johnson retired from Tri-C effective June 30,2022, but Professors Gaston and
Lanier still experience the effects of his hostility and retaliation, which irrevocably damaged their
professional reputations and working conditions at Tri-C.
105. In academia, reputation is critical. Professors Gaston and Lanier are respected and decorated
professors, but Defendant Johnson’s campaign of retaliation stripped them of earned recognition
and special assignments, and led to a significant deterioration in their working relationships and
status at the College.
106. Both Professor Gaston and Professor Lanier have also experienced significant damage to
their mental and physical health because of the retaliation against them.
107. Professor Lanier has experienced severe anxiety and fatigue. She also began to experience
gastrointestinal issues and was prescribed medication for acid reflux and ulcers.

Page 30 of 48
108. Professor Gaston lost weight so rapidly from the stress that her physician recommended she
begin mental-health counseling.
109. Professors Gaston and Lanier received their respective right-to-sue letters from the EEOC
on August 26, 2022.
Claim 1
First Amendment Retaliation Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Plaintiffs Diane
Gaston and Linda Lanier against Defendant Cuyahoga Community
College, Johnson, McCory, Webb, Clarke, Parks, Kuntz, and Brazile
110. Plaintiffs incorporate all previous allegations.
111. Professors Gaston and Lanier were public employees who engaged in First Amendment-
protected free-speech activity by out as private citizens on matters of public concern. They did so by
raising concerns with the College’s senior administration and communicating to the public through
the media about what they believed to be the College’s racially discriminatory course-scheduling
practices. Their speech was not part of their ordinary or ad hoc job duties as Tri-C faculty members.
112. Allegations about racial discrimination involve a classic matter of public concern,2 as do
allegations of violations of law,3 such as retaliation for opposing such discrimination.
113. Reporting to the media on racial discrimination and on unlawful retaliation for opposing
such discrimination was not part of Professor Gaston’s or Professor Lanier’s ordinary or ad hoc job
duties. They were speaking as private citizens in bringing this activity to light.
114. In speaking out, Professors Gaston and Lanier engaged in constitutionally protected conduct
or activity under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
2 See, e.g., Whitney v. City ofMilan, 677 F.3d 292, 298 (6th Cir. 2012) (“Allegations of racial discrimination by a
public entity ‘inherently’ involve a matter of public concern.”) (quoting Miller v. City of Canton, 319 F. App’x
411, 416 (6th Cir. 2009)).
3 See, eg., Banks, 330 F.3d at 896 (“Defendants’ failure to follow state law is a ‘concern to the community.’”);
Mahronic v. Walker, 800 F.2d 613, 616 (6th Cir. 1986) (“Public interest is near its zenith when ensuring that
public organizations are being operated in accordance with the law.”).

Page 31 of 48
115. Defendants Johnson, McCory, Webb, Clarke, Parks, Kuntz, and Brazile knew Professors
Gaston and Lanier had engaged in protected conduct or activity.
116. These Defendants took adverse actions against Professors Gaston and Lanier—including all
the retaliatory acts described above—that would deter a person of ordinary firmness from
continuing to engage in that conduct. These included, but were not limited to:
a. Cutting off workplace communication with them (making it more difficult for them to
perform their duties);
b. Disparaging them to co-workers and making it clear that they were persona non grata with
Defendant Johnson (resulting in co-workers ignoring them and making it more difficult
to perform their duties);
c. Ignoring their emails reporting retaliation;
d. Ignoring their requests for family and medical leave;
e. Subjecting them to unfavorable working conditions and denying them opportunities for
professional development;
f. Lodging false and baseless accusations against them;
g. Forcing them to repeatedly defend themselves against the false and baseless allegations
in pre-deprivation hearings, grievances, and arbitration; and
h. Using the false and baseless allegations as a basis for unwarranted disciplinary action
including an unpaid suspension.
117. Professor Gaston’s and Professor Lanier’s First Amendment-protected speech was a
substantial or motivating factor4 in the adverse actions they suffered at the hands of Defendants
Johnson, McCory, Webb, Clarke, Parks, Kuntz, and Brazile.
4 See, e.g., Vaster v. City ofKalamazoo, 746 F.3d 714, 733 (6th Cir. 2014).

Page 32 of 48
118. Defendants lack any countervailing interest that outweighs Professor Gaston’s and Professor
Lanier’s interest in speaking out on the above-mentioned matters.
119. The contours of Professor Gaston’s and Professor Lanier’s right to speak on matters of
public concern as private citizens was sufficiently clearly established at the time they exercised it to
apprise a reasonable public employee that retaliating against them for exercising those rights was
unlawful.
120. These Defendants were at all relevant times sufficiently empowered College officials that
their acts constitute the customs, policies, and practices of the College.
121. As a direct and proximate result of this unlawful campaign of retaliation that the College
endorsed and adopted as its own unwritten policy, Professor Gaston and Professor Lanier have
suffered and will continue to suffer economic and non-economic damages for which Defendants
College, Johnson, McCory, Webb, Clarke, Parks, Kuntz, and Brazile are liable, including, but not
limited to, pain and suffering, the loss of salary, wages, and benefits, and other terms, privileges, and
conditions of employment.
122. These Defendants’ acts were malicious, in bad faith, willful, egregious, and worthy of
substantial sanction to punish and deter them and others from engaging in this type of unlawful
conduct.
Claim 2
Retaliation under Civil Rights Act, Title VI, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d by Plantiffs
Diane Gaston and Linda Lanier against Defendant Cuyahoga Community
College
124. Under Tide VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), it is unlawful for any
program or activity receiving federal financial assistance to intentionally discriminate against a

Page 33 of 48
person on the basis of race, color, or national origin.5
125. 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-4a(2)(A) defines “program and activity” to include all of the operations of
“a college, university, or other postsecondary institution, or a public system of higher education.”
126. It is also unlawful for a program or activity to retaliate against an individual because she
opposed a discriminatory practice she reasonably believed was prohibited under Tide VI.6
127. Whoever violates the above-described legal obligation is subject to a civil action for damages,
injunctive relief, or any other appropriate relief.7
128. As detailed in Claim 2, Professors Gaston and Lanier made both oral and written complaints
to Tri-C administrators and the media regarding the College’s racially discriminatory course
scheduling practices.
129. Professors Gaston and Lanier had a reasonable, good faith belief that Tri-C intentionally
discriminated against students on the basis of their race (by removing many in-person course
offerings from the campus with the most concentrated population of African-American students)
and complained about this unlawful practice.
130. Professors Gaston and Lanier engaged in protected activity under Title VI by opposing
discrimination (racially discriminatory course-scheduling practices) both internally and publicly.
5 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a); Alexander v. Choate, 459 U.S. 287, 293 (1985) (holding that Title VI prohibits
intentional discrimination).
6 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-l; 34 C.F.R. § 100.7(e) (“No recipient or other person shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or
discriminate against any individual for the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by [Title
VI of the Civil Rights] Act or this part, or because he has made a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated
in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this part.”);
7 29 U.S.C. § 794(a(2) (“The remedies procedures, and rights set forth in [TJitle VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 ... shall be available to any person aggrieved by an act or failure to act by any recipient of Federal
assistance ...”); Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 275, 279 (2001) (holding that private individuals may sue
to enforce Sec. 601 of Title VI to obtain injunctive relief and damages). See also Peters v.Jenney, 327 F.3d 307,
319 (4th Cir. 2003) (holding that the retaliation provisions of 34 C.F.R. § 100.7(e) are enforceable via an
implied private right of action).

Page 34 of 48
131. The College was aware that Professors Gaston and Lanier had engaged in protected
activities.
132. The College intentionally and maliciously discriminated (retaliated) against Professors
Gaston and Lanier after they opposed an unlawful discriminatory practice, i.e., Tri-C’s racially
discriminatory course-scheduling practices.
133. The College took adverse actions against Professors Gaston and Lanier—including all the
retaliatory acts in detailed above and below—that would deter a person of ordinary firmness from
continuing to engage in that conduct. These included, for example, suspending them without pay
and subjecting them to a grueling, year-long disciplinary process based on false allegations.
134. As a direct and proximate result of this unlawful conduct, Professors Gaston and Lanier
have suffered and will continue to suffer economic and non-economic damages for which the
College, is liable including, but not limited to, pain and suffering, the loss of salary, wages, and
benefits, and other terms, privileges, and conditions of employment.
135. Defendants Johnson, McCory, Webb, Clarke, Parks, Kuntz, and Brazile’s acts were willful,
egregious, malicious, and worthy of substantial sanction to punish and deter them and others from
engaging in this type of unlawful conduct.
Claims
Retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-3(a), by Plaintiffs Diane Gaston and Linda Lanier against
Defendant Cuyahoga Community College
137. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), it is an unlawful
employment practice for an employer to discriminate (i.e., retaliate) against its employees because
they opposed an unlawful discriminatory practice or because they made a charge or participated in
any manner in an EEOC proceeding.

Page 35 of 48
138. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1981a and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., whoever violates the above-described
legal obligation is subject to a civil action for damages, injunctive relief, or any other appropriate
relief.
139. Professor Gaston had a reasonable, good-faith belief that the College had discriminated
against her because of her race and complained about this unlawful practice.
140. Professor Lanier had a reasonable, good-faith belief that the College had discriminated
against her because of her race and/or sex and complained about this unlawful practice.
141. Professors Gaston and Lanier had a reasonable, good-faith belief that they were being
retaliated against for their opposition to this unlawful discrimination against them.
142. Professor Gaston engaged in protected activity under Tide VII by opposing race
discrimination internally and by filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC reporting that she
had been subject to different terms and conditions of employment because of her race.
143. Professor Lanier engaged in protected activity under Title VII by opposing race and sex
discrimination internally and by filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC reporting she they
had been subject to different terms and conditions of employment because of her race and sex.
144. Professors Gaston and Lanier engaged in protected activity under Tide VII by opposing
discrimination (retaliation for opposing race and sex discrimination) internally and by filing a charge
of discrimination with the EEOC regarding the retaliation they faced for opposing discrimination.
145. The College was aware that Professors Gaston and Lanier had engaged in protected
activities.
146. The College intentionally and maliciously discriminated against Professors Gaston and
Lanier after they opposed an unlawful discriminatory practice, i.e., race and sex discrimination, by
subjecting them to different terms and conditions of employment than similarly situated white
and/or male colleagues.

Page 36 of 48
147. Defendants College, Johnson, McCory, Webb, Clarke, Parks, Kuntz, and Brazile took many
retaliatory actions against Professors Gaston and Lanier, as detailed in the factual narrative and the
preceding claim. These included, but were not limited to:
a. Cutting off communication with them (making it more difficult for them to perform
their duties);
b. Disparaging them to co-workers and making it clear that they were persona non grata with
Defendant Johnson (resulting in co-workers ignoring them and making it more difficult
to perform their duties);
c. Ignoring their emails reporting retaliation;
d. Ignoring their requests for family and medical leave;
e. Subjecting them to unfavorable working conditions and denying them opportunities for
professional development;
f. Lodging false and baseless accusations against them;
g. Forcing them to repeatedly defend themselves against the false and baseless allegations
in pre-deprivation hearings, grievances, and arbitration; and
h. Using the false and baseless allegations as a basis for unwarranted disciplinary action
including an unpaid suspension.
148. The retaliation changed the terms and conditions of Professor Gaston’s and Professor
Lanier’s employment and subjected them to adverse employment actions.
149. The retaliation Professors Gaston and Lanier suffered would dissuade a reasonable worker
from opposing discrimination.
150. Tri-C is vicariously liable for its agents’ acts toward Professors Gaston and Lanier.
151. As a direct and proximate result of this unlawful conduct. Professors Gaston and Lanier
have suffered and will continue to suffer economic and non-economic damages for which the

Page 37 of 48
College is liable, including, but not limited to, pain and suffering, the loss of salary, wages, and
Claim 4
Retaliation by Plaintiffs Diane Gaston and Linda Lanier Ohio Rev. Code
§ 4112.02(1) against Cuyahoga Community College, Johnson, McCory, Webb,
Clarke, Parks, Kuntz, and Brazile
153. Under Ohio law, including Ohio Rev. Code § 4112.02(1), it is an unlawful employment
practice for any person to discriminate in any manner (i.e., retaliate) against any other person
because that person has opposed an unlawful discriminatory practice.
154. Ohio Rev. Code § 4112.01(A) defines “person” to include “individuals,” “legal
representatives,” “agentfsj,” “the state and all political subdivisions,” “authorities,” “agencies,”
“boards.”
155. As detailed in the factual narrative and preceding claims. Professors Gaston and Lanier
engaged in protected activity and suffered retaliation as a result.
156. Tri-C is vicariously liable for its agents’ acts.
157. Defendant Johnson (who had supervisory authority, including the ultimate determination on
their suspension, demotion, reduction in pay) is jointly and severally liable for damages Professors
Gaston and Lanier suffered because of his campaign of retaliation.
158. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful retaliatory conduct, Professors
Gaston and Lanier have suffered and will continue to suffer economic and non-economic damages
for which Defendants College, Johnson, McCory, Webb, Clarke, Parks, Kuntz, and Brazile are liable,
including, but not limited to, pain and suffering, the loss of salary, wages, and benefits, and other
terms, privileges, and conditions of employment.
159. The individual Defendants’ acts were willful, egregious, malicious, and worthy of substantial
sanction to punish and deter them and others from engaging in this type of unlawful conduct.

Page 38 of 48
Claims
Aiding and Abetting Discrimination under Ohio Rev. Code §§ 4112.02(J) and 4112.99
by Diane Gaston and Linda Lanier against the College, Johnson, McCory, Webb,
161. Under Ohio law, including Ohio Rev. Code § 4112.02(J), it is an unlawful employment
practice for any person to aid, abet, incite, compel, or coerce the doing of any act declared an
unlawful discriminatory practice under Ohio Rev. Code § 4112.02.
162. Under Ohio law, including Ohio Rev. Code § 4112.99, whoever violates the above-described
legal obligation is subject to civil action for damages, injunctive relief, or any other appropriate relief.
163. Under Ohio law including Ohio Rev. Code § 4112.02(1), it is an unlawful employment
practice to discriminate in any manner (i.e., retaliate) against any person because he opposed an
unlawful discriminatory practice.
164. To aid or abet in discrimination, a person need only knowingly do something he ought not
to do, or omit to do something he ought to do, that “assists or tends in some way to affect the doing
of the thing which the law forbids.”8
165. Defendants College, McCory, Webb, Clarke, Parks, Kuntz, and Brazile aided Defendant
Johnson in an unlawful discriminatory practice, i.e., retaliating against Professors Gaston and Lanier,
as described in the factual narrative and claims above.
166. Defendant Johnson similarly aided the others in retaliating against Professors Gaston and
Lanier.
8 State v. Stepp, 117 Ohio App.3d, 569, 690 N.E.2d 1342 (4th Dist.1997) (quoting Smith v. State, 41 Ohio App.
64, 67-68,179 N.E. 696 (9th Dist. Dec. 9,1931)), cited in Luke v. City of Cleveland, No. l:02CV1225,2005 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 49630 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 22,2005); see also Woodworth v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., N.D. Ohio No.
1:15-CV-1685,2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148832 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 2, 2015) (citations omitted).

Page 39 of 48
have suffered and will continue to suffer economic and non-economic damages for which
Defendants College, Johnson, McCory, Webb, Clarke, Parks, Kuntz, and Brazile are liable, including,
but not limited to, pain and suffering, the loss of salary, wages, and benefits, and other terms,
privileges, and conditions of employment.
168. Defendants’ acts were willful, egregious, malicious, and worthy of substantial sanction to
punish and deter them and others from engaging in this type of unlawful conduct.
169.
Claim 6
(ALTERNATIVE CLAIM)
Civil Liabilty for Criminal Acts (Retaliation Because Public Servants
Discharged Their Duties) under Ohio Rev. Code §§ 2307.60 and 2921.05 by
Plaintiffs Diane Gaston and Linda Lanier against Johnson, McCory, Webb,
171. Under Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.05, no person, purposely and by unlawful threat of harm to
any person or property, shall retaliate against a public servant because the public servant discharged
her duties. The provision carries a criminal penalty.
172. Under Ohio Rev. Code § 2307.60, anyone injured in person or property by a criminal act
may recover full damages in a civil action.
173. To the extent that the Court determines that, in reporting to Tri-C administrators on the
racially discriminatory course-scheduling practices, that Professor Gaston and/or Professor Lanier
were in fact discharging their duties and not speaking in their capacity as citizens, then Defendants
Johnson, McCory, Webb, Clarke, Parks, Kuntz, and Brazile retaliated against Professors Gaston and
Lanier for discharging their duties.
174. This retaliation involved both threatening and eventually imposing economic harm on
Professors Gaston and Lanier for complaining about discriminatory policies they discovered in the

Page 40 of 48
course and scope of their duties. The retaliatory acts are set forth in the factual narrative above and
in Claim 2.
Defendants are liable, including, but not limited to, pain and suffering, the loss of salary, wages, and
Claim?
Civil Liability for Criminal Acts (Tampering with Evidence) under Ohio
Rev. Code §§ 2307.60 and 2913.42(A)(1) and (A)(2) by Plaintiffs Diane Gaston
and Linda Lanier against Defendants Johnson and Brazile
177. Under Ohio Rev. Code § 2913.42(A)(1), “No person, knowing the person has no privilege to
do so, and with purpose to defraud or knowing that the person is facilitating a fraud, shall... [falsify,
destroy, remove, conceal, alter, deface, or mutilate any writing, computer software, data, or record;.
Under § 2913.42(A)(2), no such person may “Utter any writing or record, knowing it to have been
tampered with as provided in division (A)(1) of this section.”
may recover full damages in a civil action. Violations of Ohio Rev. Code § 2913.42 are criminal acts.
179. Defendant Johnson’s statements during the May 24, 2021 virtual townhall falsified writings,
computer software, data, and records. Such false statements included, but are not limited to:
• “I must remind all of you that when you hear from the press, that that [w] is to be
reported to Integrated Communications...”
180. Defendant Johnson also uttered this record.
181. Defendant Johnson knew that there was no such policy. And he had no privilege to do so,
and he acted with purpose to defraud or knowing that he was facilitating a fraud.

Page 41 of 48
182. The June 16, 2021 Pre-Disciplinary Due Process Meeting Notifications issued to Professors
Gaston and Lanier also falsified writings and records. The false statements contained in these
writings include, but are not limited to:
• Allegations that Professors Gaston and Lanier violated the “public affairs and
information policy.”
• Allegations that Professors Gaston and Lanier violated the collective-bargaining
agreement between Tri-C and the American Association of University Professors.
183. The August 6, 2021 Suspension Letters issued to Professors Gaston and Lanier were
falsified. The false statements contained in these writings include, but are not limited to:
• “[Professor Gaston’s] actions, behavior]] and conduct violated College Policy and the
labor agreement.”
• “[Professor Lanier’s] actions, behavior[] and conduct violated College Policy and the
labor agreement.”
184. Defendant Brazile also falsified these writings and records.
Defendant Johnson and Defendant Brazile are liable, including, but not limited to, pain and
suffering, the loss of salary, wages, and benefits, and other terms, privileges, and conditions of
employment.
186. Defendant Johnson and Brazile’s, acts were willful, egregious, malicious, and worthy of
conduct.

Page 42 of 48
Claims
Civil Liability for Criminal Acts (Telecommunications Fraud) under Ohio
Rev. Code §§ 2307.60 and 2913.05(A) by Plaintiffs Diane Gaston and Linda
Lanier against Defendant Johnson
188. Under Ohio Rev. Code § 2913.05(A), “No person, having devised a scheme to defraud, shall
knowingly disseminate, transmit, or cause to be disseminated or transmitted by means of a wire,
radio, satellite, telecommunication, telecommunications device, telecommunications service, or voice
over internet protocol service any writing, data, sign, signal, picture, sound, or image with purpose to
execute or otherwise further the scheme to defraud.”
may recover full damages in a civil action. Violations of Ohio Rev. Code § 2913.05 are criminal acts.
190. Defendant Johnson, having devised a scheme to defraud, knowingly disseminated,
transmitted, and caused to be disseminated by means of a wire, radio, satellite, telecommunication,
telecommunications device, telecommunications service, and voice over internet protocol service
data, sign, signal, picture, sound, and image with purpose to execute and otherwise further the
scheme to defraud false statements including, but are not limited to:
• “I must remind all of you that when you hear from the press, that that [rz?] is to be
reported to Integrated Communications..
191. Defendant Johnson knew that there was no such policy.
192. As a direct and proximate result of this unlawful conduct. Professors Gaston and Lanier
Defendants Johnson and Brazile are liable, including, but not limited to, pain and suffering, the loss
of salary, wages, and benefits, and other terms, privileges, and conditions of employment.

Page 43 of 48
193. Defendants Johnson and Brazile’s, acts were willful, egregious, malicious, and worthy of
conduct.
Claim 9
Intimidation Using a False or Fraudulent Writing under Ohio Rev. Code
§§ 2921.03(A) and (C) and Civil Liability for Criminal Acts under Ohio Rev.
Code § 2307.60 by Plaintiffs Diane Gaston and Linda Lanier against
Defendants Johnson and Brazile
195. Under Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.03(A), no person, knowingly and by filing, recording, or
otherwise using a materially false or fraudulent writing with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a
wanton or reckless manner, shall attempt to influence, intimidate, or hinder a public servant in the
discharge of the person's duty. The provision carries a criminal penalty.
196. Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.03(C) provides for a civil cause of action for damages, including
attorney fees and costs, for violations of Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.03(A).
may recover full damages in a civil action. Violations of Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.03(A) are criminal
acts, indeed felonious, under § 2921.03(B).
198. Defendant Johnson’s statements during the May 24, 2021 virtual townhall were materially
false and fraudulent writings. Such statements included, but are not limited to:
• “I must remind all of you that when you hear from the press, that that [rz?] is to be
reported to Integrated Communications...”
199. Defendant Johnson recorded and used these materially false and fraudulent writings with
malicious purpose, in bad faith, and in a wanton and reckless manner, to attempt to hinder public
servants, including but not limited to all Tri-C faculty and staff members who watched the townhall,
in carrying out their job duties, by subjecting them to unwarranted discipline as public employees.

Page 44 of 48
200. The June 16, 2021 Pre-Disciplinary Due Process Meeting Notifications issued to Professors
Gaston and Lanier were also materially false and fraudulent writings. The false statements contained
in these writings include, but are not limited to:
• Allegations that Professors Gaston and Lanier violated the “public affairs and
information policy.”
• Allegations that Professors Gaston and Lanier violated the collective-bargaining
agreement between Tri-C and the American Association of University Professors.
201. Defendant Brazile drafted and/or used these materially false and fraudulent writings with
malicious purpose, in bad faith, and in a wanton and reckless manner, to attempt to hinder
Professors Gaston and Lanier in carrying out their job duties, by subjecting them to unwarranted
discipline as public employees.
202. Defendant Brazile also used the Pre-Disciplinary Due Process Meeting Notifications to
influence Tri-C administrators to approve and uphold unwarranted and retaliatory discipline against
Professors Gaston and Lanier.
203. The August 6, 2021 Suspension Letters issued to Professors Gaston and Lanier were
materially false and fraudulent writings. The false statements contained in these writings include, but
are not limited to:
• “[Professor Gaston’s] actions, behaviorj] and conduct violated College Policy and the
labor agreement.”
• “[Professor Lanier’s] actions, behavior[] and conduct violated College Policy and the
labor agreement.”
204. Defendant Brazile drafted and/or used these materially false and fraudulent writings with
malicious purpose in bad faith, or in a wanton and reckless manner, to attempt to hinder Professors

Page 45 of 48
Gaston and Lanier in carrying out their job duties, by subjecting them to unwarranted discipline as
public employees.
Defendants Johnson and Brazile are liable, including, but not limited to, pain and suffering, the loss
of salary, wages, and benefits, and other terms, privileges, and conditions of employment.
206. Defendant Johnson and Brazile’s, acts were willful, egregious, malicious, and worthy of
conduct.
Claim 10
Civil Liabilty for Criminal Acts (Interfering with Civil and Statutory
Rights) under Ohio Rev. Code §§ 2307.60 and 2921.45 by Plaintiffs Diane
Gaston and Linda Lanier against Defendants Johnson, McCory, Webb,
207. Plaintiff incorporates all previous allegations.
208. Under Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.45, no public servant, under color of his office, employment,
or authority, shall knowingly deprive, or conspire or attempt to deprive any person of a
constitutional or statutory right. This provision carries a criminal penalty.
may recover full damages in a civil action.
210. Defendants Johnson, McCory, Webb, Clarke, Parks, Kuntz, and Brazile are public servants.
Under color of their office, employment, or authority, each knowingly deprived Professors Gaston
and Lanier of their constitutional and statutory rights as detailed above, including their right to be
free from retaliation for opposing discrimination and their constitutional right to freedom of speech.
211. Asa direct and proximate result of this unlawful conduct, Professors Gaston and Lanier

Page 46 of 48
Defendants Johnson, McCory, Webb, Clarke, Parks, Kuntz, and Brazile are liable, including, but not
limited to, pain and suffering, the loss of salary, wages, and benefits, and other terms, privileges, and
conditions of employment.
212. These Defendants’ acts were willful, egregious, malicious, and worthy of substantial sanction
to punish and deter them and others from engaging in this type of unlawful conduct.
Prayer for Relief
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs respectfully requests the following relief from the Court:
1. Declare that Defendants’ acts and conduct constitute violations of federal and state law
and the United States Constitution;
2. Enjoin Defendants from further retaliating against Plaintiffs Gaston and Lanier and
from further implementing any previous acts of retaliation;
3. Enter judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor on all claims for relief;
4. Award Plaintiffs full compensatory damages, economic and non-economic, including,

but not limited to, damages for pain and suffering, mental anguish, emotional distress,
humiliation, and inconvenience that they have suffered and are reasonably certain to
suffer in the future;
5. Award Plaintiffs punitive damages as appropriate for all intentional and malicious
violations of federal and state law and constitutional rights;
6. Award pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the highest lawful rate;
7. Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorney fees (including expert fees) and all other costs
of this suit;
8. Award all other relief in law or equity to which Plaintiffs are entided and that the Court
deems equitable just, or proper.
Jury Demand
Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues within this complaint.

Page 47 of 48
Dated November 23, 2022 Respectfully submitted,
/ s/ Subodh Chandra____________________
Subodh Chandra (OH 0069233)
Donald P. Screen (OH 0044070)
Melissa S. Obodzinski (OH 0102556)
The Chandra Law Firm LLC
The Chandra Law Building
1265 W. 6th St., Suite 400
Cleveland, OH 44113-1326
216.578.1700 Phone
216.578.1800 Fax
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Attorneysfor Plaintiffs Diane Gaston and Unda Lanier

Page 48 of 48
Exhibit 1 is a video recording of the May 21,2021WOIO Channel 19 News “Next 400”
report and is being filed manually.

Channel 19 News Transcript
May 21st, 2021
Interviewer: The Covid-19 pandemic closed the book on in-person classes for nearly a
year, changing the way students learn from a seat in the classroom to
remote learning online. Deandre Wilson is a Tri-C graduate who moved on
to a four-year college, but felt stalled by virtual courses put in place due to
the coronavirus.
Student: It just didn’t feel the same. It wasn’t something I was used to so that’s
when I just made the decision, like, maybe I should take a break.
Lanier: The students at Metro, do not, by our own data, do well in a virtual,
online environment. Online classes are the highest courses—the
highest failure rate.
Interviewer: So, could online courses, combined with access to fewer course offerings
for Tri-C’s Metro students, make the comeback to the classroom a
challenge? Dr. Denise McCorey, President of the Metro Campus, tells me
all campuses have been treated the same, with limited on-campus
services and limited classes. But, it’s how to return to campus after a
global health crisis that is still being worked out. The administration
charged with figuring out how to enforce guidelines without knowing who
is vaccinated and who is not.
McCorey: Because we don’t know people’s status, as far as vaccination is

concerned, we are going to have to assume that everybody is not
vaccinated,everyone is un-vaccinated, and we’re gonna have to make
sure that we stay conservative in our approach to keep everybody safe.
Interviewer: The other issue, in-person classes offered at this time are still not at full
capacity. But the President of the Metro campus says they do plan to
offer more courses once they top out.
McCorey: I was just looking at the data for our fall semester. None of our fully on
ground classes in the general studies area, none of those are full yet. So,
we haven’t seen the demand yet. But it’s still relatively early.
Interviewer: While some suburban campuses have transitioned back to the classroom,
in part, Metro students are still getting their education, in large part,
remotely. Linda Lanier is an associate professor of counseling at Tri-C and
feels that’s a clear disadvantage.
Lanier: We know who is going to be hurt the most. First of all, students of color,
students who lack technology, it’s poor students. Our eastern campus
Electronically Filed 11/23/2022 21:08 / / CV 22 971748 / Confirmation Nbr. 2710660 / CLAJB EXHIBIT
1
2
began in the January session of offering more on-ground campus,
which is up in Highland—urn, Richmond, Highland Hills area. And 1
thought that was a good step. 1 thought we would be following them.
Interviewer: But she says that didn’t happen. The largely minority Metro campus with
about 4,000 students had approximately 70% of them taking classes in
person before the pandemic. Now concerns they may be forced to travel
to another campus to get access to courses. Diane Gaston is an associate
professor who says programs like social work or human services are no
longer offered at Metro, a popular field for minority students.
Gaston: Our motto is “Tri-C is where futures begin.” It doesn’t line up with that
motto if certain students don’t have the same opportunities, the same
access.
McCorey: My priority is to—to get students back.
Interviewer: But could fewer course offerings, coupled with continued online learning,
force minority students, already historically disadvantaged, to put college
on hold and detour their path to progress? Former student Deandre says
he’s a proud graduate of Tri-C, but wants the playing field to be level,
whether you are at Metro or in the suburbs.
Student: School is a challenge in itself.
Interviewer: For The Next 400, Michelle Nicks, 19News.
2
Exhibit 3 is a video recording of Tri-C’s May 24, 2021 virtual townhall and is being filed
manually.
Electronically Filed 11/23/2022 21:08 / / CV 22 971748 / Confirmation Nbr. 2710660 I CLAJB

Tri-C Professors Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tri-C Professors Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NAILAH K.

Court of Common Pleas

New Case Electronically Filed: COMPLAINT

By: SUBODH CHANDRA 0069233

Confirmation Nbr. 2710660

DIANE GASTON, ET AL. CV 22 971748

Electronically Filed 11/23/2022 21:08/ / CV 22 971748 / Confirmation Nbr. 2710660 / CLAJB

Cuyahoga Community College

Electronically Filed 11/23/2022 21:08 / / CV 22 971748 / Confirmation Nbr. 2710660 / CLAJB

Complaint with Jury Demand

1. This is a civil-rights action brought under federal and state anti-discrimination-and-retaliation

intimidation under Ohio law.

3. Plaintiff Professor Diane Gaston is a faculty member of Defendant Cuyahoga Community

College and resides in Cuyahoga County, Ohio.

Electronically Filed 11/23/2022 21:08 / / CV 22 971748 / Confirmation Nbr. 2710660 / CLAJB

College and resides in Summit County, Ohio.

5. Defendant Cuyahoga Community College (“Tri-C” or the “College”) is a public,

governmental higher-educational institution with four campuses throughout Cuyahoga County,

in carrying out their duties in a lawful manner.

state law. He resides in Cuyahoga County. He is sued in his personal capacity.

official and personal capacity.

in Cuyahoga County. She is sued in her official and personal capacity.

Electronically Filed 11/23/2022 21:08 / / CV 22 971748 / Confirmation Nbr. 2710660 / CLAJB

Jurisdiction and Venue

Cuyahoga County, Ohio.

Professors Gaston and Lanier are distinguished, tenured faculty members of

current and prospective students.

Electronically Filed 11/23/2022 21:08 / / CV 22 971748 / Confirmation Nbr. 2710660 / CLAJB

opposing racial discrimination.

cultivating student success and supporting African-American women.

with the administration and the media.

resumed offering in-person classes on its campuses.

with registration scheduled to open on March 22, 2021.

Electronically Filed 11/23/2022 21:08 / / CV 22 971748 / Confirmation Nbr. 2710660 / CLAJB

opportunities to take in-person courses); and

African-American students than the College’s suburban campuses.

broadband internet) or travel to suburban campuses for in-person instruction.

enrollment numbers in the spring 2021 semester.

Electronically Filed 11/23/2022 21:08 / / CV 22 971748 / Confirmation Nbr. 2710660 / CLAJB

the popular and needed [introductory philosophy course]?”

were more tailored to student achievement.

33. These reports were effectively dismissed:

remove Metro campus’s in-person philosophy and religious-studies courses on low

• Defendant Parks acknowledged Professor Lanier’s “thoughts on this important topic”

Electronically Filed 11/23/2022 21:08 / / CV 22 971748 / Confirmation Nbr. 2710660 / CLAJB

would have on African-American students. Defendant Parks instead offered a vague

new development of remote courses, a decline in overall enrollment, and a need to

about areas of concern as they arise.”

colleagues, CMSD personnel, and other community members, yet ignored.”

policies are negatively impacting achievement for students of color.”

Electronically Filed 11/23/2022 21:08 / / CV 22 971748 / Confirmation Nbr. 2710660 / CLAJB

faculty can only elect to teach courses that Tri-C offers.

the Metropolitan Campus. We have both individually contacted administrators before

courses at the Metropolitan campus for fall 2021.”

ground courses]] reflects their understanding of student-centered learning. What is

Electronically Filed 11/23/2022 21:08 / / CV 22 971748 / Confirmation Nbr. 2710660 / CLAJB

least desiring of online offerings.”

course-scheduling practices in front of her colleagues.

2020. She reported that:

Electronically Filed 11/23/2022 21:08 / / CV 22 971748 / Confirmation Nbr. 2710660 / CLAJB

• Her department’s scheduling managers had assigned her to a less-favorable appointment

from students and colleagues during the day.