In Defense Of Dean Lawrence Mitchell

Here is a statement that Subodh Chandra, counsel to Professor Raymond Ku, sent our way. As you can see, it expands upon Chandra’s prior statements to the Cleveland Plain Dealer and to Crain’s Cleveland Business:

It’s understandable that Mr. Mitchell would want now want allegations regarding his own behavior hidden from scrutiny. All allegations in the amended complaint have a good-faith factual basis and are relevant to the lawsuit—and we will respond accordingly with the Court.

As the amended complaint states, Professor Ku reported Mr. Mitchell’s behavior to comply with the University’s mandatory sexual-harassment-reporting policy and to protect members of the law-school and University communities. We challenge Mr. Mitchell, and his university-donor-paid counsel and expensive P.R. consultants at Dix & Eaton to share with the world right now the evidentiary basis for this desperate “associate deans gone wild” defense, which really represents further retaliation. They won’t because they can’t. It’s sad and pathetic.

In addition to Professor Ku (who was nominated by someone else), there were at least two other internal candidates for the deanship when Mitchell was the final selection. None of the internal candidates were finalists or selected. Why didn’t they all go crazy? Why did Professor Ku serve just fine as associate dean under former dean Robert Rawson, when Professor Ku was also nominated for that deanship as well? As the amended complaint states, Mr. Mitchell asked Professor Ku to continue as associate dean for academic affairs. Professor Ku did so, became aware of sexual harassment, and reported it as required by University policy.

Here are Chandra’s responses to the more-specific points (pasted below each subject heading):

1. Omission of the flyer from the amended complaint.

We don’t discuss attorney work product or legal strategy for obvious reasons. The relevant elements on the flyer for which we have a good-faith basis remain included in the First Amended Complaint. For example, we would direct your attention to paragraph 105 of the First Amended Complaint, which captures a lot:

“Other complaints about Dean Mitchell’s behavior.”

“105. On information and belief, during the 2011–12 academic year, one or more university administrators became aware of additional concerns about Dean Mitchell’s behavior from one or more sources in or associated with Case.”

The First Amended Complaint contains many new allegations, particularly those regarding Administrative Staffer # 3. Some of those allegations include a more direct and cogent account of some of the grammatically garbled allegations contained on the anonymous flyer.

2. No effort at pre-suit settlement or advance notice to the law school.

As the First Amended Complaint alleges, Professor Ku complied with the University’s mandatory sexual-harassment reporting policy, and then sought to avail himself, privately and confidentially, of the internal retaliation-complaint process. As further alleged, University officials high up in the chain of command not only failed to act on his concerns, but seemed to indulge the retaliation. We emailed a copy of the complaint the Case’s in-house counsel as soon as the Complaint was filed. Likewise with the First Amended Complaint.

3. Ku was not retaliated against — he received a generous sabbatical, and he was not entitled to extra compensation for being associate dean after leaving the post.

As the First Amended Complaint alleges, the terms and timing of the Professor Ku’s sabbatical were negotiated with the prior dean, Robert Rawson, based in part upon Professor Ku not receiving relief from teaching duties while serving as associate dean. As further alleged, upon Professor Ku’s return, Mr. Mitchell further retaliated against Professor Ku by taking away his co-directorship of the Center for Law, Technology and the Arts, as well as the associated compensation.

The amended complaint alleges in paragraph 125(n) that there is additional financial compensation traditionally associated with being a former associate dean and that Defendants Mr. Mitchell and the University denied Professor Ku that.

4. The ties of Chandra’s wife to Cleveland-Marshall, a rival law school.

One would be hard-pressed in Cleveland’s legal community to find anyone without affiliations with either or both of our local law schools, which don’t really compete in the same “space.” (Indeed, the prior Case law dean, Robert Rawson, while serving as dean, served on the board of trustees of Cleveland State University.) The institution has different strengths and different constituencies. But they are both crown jewels of Cleveland and will remain so. My wife is a proud Cleveland-Marshall alumna who serves on that institution’s visiting committee, while I have taught legal ethics and appellate advocacy as an adjunct professor and “Distinguished Practitioner in Residence” at Case. I guest lecture at Case often. I’ve hired terrific lawyers from both institutions both in private practice and as the former Director of Law for the City of Cleveland. I have faculty friends and acquaintances at both institutions as well, including my client, Professor Ku.

What is fascinating is the desperate psychology of anyone trying to spread narratives that divert from the retaliation allegations and evidence against Mr. Mitchell. We’re going to start talking about the attorneys? Really? If someone needs to believe that it’s all really about a Yale Law School graduate who taught at Case and has a Cleveland-Marshall wife secretly plotting… That’s both funny and sad at the same time.

Let’s close with Chandra’s response to those who claim that his client acted selfishly in filing suit, harming the true victims of any alleged harassment as well as the reputation of Case Western Law:

Most reasonable people do not have a “blame-the-victim” mentality and understand that retaliation violates federal and state law and that individuals have a right to stand up for their rights. The First Amended Complaint take pains to protect victims’ identities. It is Defendants who have jeopardized the institution’s reputation. Professor Ku has always acted to protect the University and Law School’s best interests — which are to prevent sexual harassment and retaliation and ensure that those who complain are safe from retaliation.

Ladies and gentlemen, battle has been joined. You have now heard Professor Raymond’s Ku’s allegations, Dean Lawrence Mitchell’s defenses and counterattacks, and Professor Ku’s rebuttal.

Discovery in this case is sure to be interesting — and a trial would be even more fascinating. Maybe I’ll come out to the Buckeye State to conduct live, gavel-to-gavel coverage. When’s the best time of year to visit Cleveland?

(Flip to the next page for Dean Mitchell’s complete motion to strike and for collected news coverage about the motion.)

UPDATE (5:30 p.m.): Also on the next page, a message just sent out to Case alumni by President Barbara R. Snyder.