High-ranking UWI official faces sexual harassment probe

A senior official at The University of the West Indies (UWI), Mona, is now under investigation for the alleged sexual harassment of a female subordinate, who is now fearful and doubtful about her professional future at the institution.

The Sunday Gleaner understands that the case has been escalated to the UWI Regional Headquarters, where sexual harassment matters involving high-ranking officials such as professors and executive members are handled.

Among the harassment allegations are inappropriate texting, professional intimidation, and claims of the accused barging into the female bathroom on at least two occasions while the complainant was inside.

There is also a separate investigation under way into allegations of professional sabotage, after she reported related concerns to the authorities.

The complainant indicated that she filed the first of a series of complaints via a letter to the university administration on March 1, 2023.

A disciplinary hearing into the matter has been postponed multiple times, causing her to believe that some campus representatives are complicit in trying “to sweep the matter under the rug”.

The first was scheduled for July 19, 2023, but failed to get under way and was rescheduled to November 17, 2023 then November 27, 2023 and November 28, 2023. After those also failed to happen, December 14 was earmarked as the new date, but nothing changed.

The complainant said that the hearing repeatedly failed to get off the ground as a result of the unavailability of all the relevant personnel for the meetings each time. On one occasion, she said, the hearing was rescheduled after the accused served her attorney with a voluminous document two days before the set date and he was unable to read it thoroughly in time for the sitting to be held.

A date was proposed for January 2024, but no hearing has been held this month. The next proposed dates are in February.

In the interim, the complainant, who still works under the supervision of the accused, told The Sunday Gleaner that she and others working closely with her have been given until next month to vacate critical spaces which they need to access in order to carry out their professional duties.

She claimed that ever since she rejected the inappropriate invitations and subsequently made reports of sexual harassment, her boss has been making her life hellish, obstructing her duties and benefits. She further claimed that she had been locked out of spaces where she would normally work and ancillary workers were ordered not to clean or collect garbage from the area.

WORK DISCREDITED

The complainant further claimed that the accused rallied other subordinates – including some who had never interfaced with her in the conduct of her duties – to file a “phony petition” discrediting her work, which prompted The UWI to take action against her without any official assessment by administrators. This, she charged, was despite several ignored invitations to senior administrators to conduct their own review.

“In the first three months, the advances were purely friendly. They were WhatsApp messages asking to go out with me. He was asking for photos or that I meet up with him while I was jogging. He would comment on my sexy legs and suggest coming over to my house,” said the complainant.

She said that while she remained polite to her superior, none of the invitations were accepted. Still, he persisted, she said, adding that he would routinely make subtle comments regarding outfits she wore to work.

“As the time went on, ... everything just started getting a lot more personal and uncomfortable,” she told The Sunday Gleaner, adding that he later entered the female bathroom when she was alone inside.

“After using the toilet, I was there washing my hands and I just looked up in the mirror he was literally right behind me,” she said. “I was so startled. He said, ‘Hi’, and started making small talk about the meeting we just had. But the whole time I was there shocked and afraid, playing neutral, trying to see which side I could use to slip past him.”

He did not try to restrain her, she admitted, and neither did he touch her.

The second incident occurred months later. But this time there was a witness, she said, noting that after the first incident, she made it a priority whenever she visited the bathroom to contact her sister on video call.

“The second time he was literally flexing his muscles. The look he gave me in the bathroom was scary. But right as he came in my sister saw him on the phone and started getting boisterous. She said, ‘Wah yuh a do a look pon him? Scream!’ Yuh can’t keep quiet when yuh see them people there. You have to meck noise!”

That outburst caused him to panic and scamper off, she believes.

The distraught woman, who said she now fears for her safety, also shared with The Sunday Gleaner what she described as inappropriate messages between herself and the accused before those incidents.

In one thread, he referred to her as “strong legs”, and offered to watch her play tennis but feared he would be recognised by others at a particular location. In another set of messages, he asked, “Did I tell you that I can see your complex from my house?” To which she responded, “Really? Where do you live?” and he responded with the name of her community.

“I have never told this man where I lived!” she stressed, adding that on several occasions he has asked her to invite him over.

In another series of messages the complainant relayed information about a surgery she underwent as a child after questions were asked when she informed him of another upcoming operation. It appears the accused had also done a similar procedure and also had scars and invited her to compare the scars on both of their bodies.

She said, “We can’t”, knowing her scar was well below her waist; and he responded, “Oh, your cut is too low.”

CLAIMS DENIED

Several attempts to contact the accused official for comment were unsuccessful last week.

However, The Sunday Gleaner obtained a copy of a written response that the accused submitted to The UWI’s Disciplinary Committee, in which he outlined, among other things, that contrarily, it was the complainant who continuously invited him out.

“It was the complainant who offered to take me out for drinks. I reminded her of this fact in a WhatsApp message sent on the 16th of September 2021 ... . At one point, she even suggested that we go out to dinner instead of just drinks, but I did not respond to this offer. Notwithstanding our discussions and attempts to schedule going out for drinks. We were never able to agree on a date, time or place. This was primarily on my part because I was mostly unavailable,” he said.

“At no point did I ever make any sexual advances towards the complainant welcomed nor unwelcomed. The complainant has never told me that my actions, words spoken, or other conduct has made her feel offended or humiliated, neither did she ever voice that conduct or words spoken has affected work performance or created a hostile work environment,” he added.

He did, however, admit that he entered the female bathroom while she was there; but only once.

“I am aware that the complainant made an allegation against me that I approached her on three different occasions inside the female bathroom ... . I will say that this incident only happened once ... in or about January 2023, whilst heading to the first floor where the male bathroom was located, I heard a toilet running in the female bathroom on the second floor,” he indicated in his statement.

“Before entering the female bathroom, I enquired if anyone was inside the bathroom; there was no response. I also observed from the entrance door that all of the stalls were open and unoccupied,” he said. “I then entered the bathroom and went to the stall in which the toilet was known to have an issue with its suction flap and proceeded to remedy the issue. When I was through I saw someone entering the bathroom and saw that it was the complainant. I apologised for being in the female bathroom, exited, and proceeded to the male bathroom.”

In response to this, the complainant noted: “I am happy that the accused did not deny coming into the female bathroom ... but the reality is, he could not deny this because he was caught on camera.”

She said the witness had provided a statement.

The Sexual Harassment ( Protection and Prevention) Act, 2021, defines sexual harassment as “the making of any unwelcome sexual advance towards a person by another person”. These advances are regarded as offensive or humiliating by the person towards whom the sexual advances are being made.

Especially concerning are instances when these acts have the effect of “interfering with the work performance of the person to whom the sexual advance is made; or creating an intimidating, offensive or hostile work environment”. Where a sexual harassment claim has been lodged, an employer is required within two days to notify the accused either in writing or electronically.

The employer should also “commence an investigation into particulars of the sexual harassment claim within fourteen days of the sexual harassment claim being lodged and complete the investigation without delay”. Failing to take the required actions could make an employer liable for failure to act.

Last Friday, UWI, Mona Campus Registrar Dr Donovan Stanberry said the matter was the first, to his knowledge, to have been elevated to the regional office in the last year, although other complaints may have been reported directly to that level, unknown to the Mona campus. He also said that this was the first case involving the accused that he was aware of.

“If you are above a certain rank in the academy, that system is handled by the regional apparatus. If you are below a certain rank, it is handled on campus,” Stanberry explained, denouncing claims that attempts are being made by the authorities to frustrate the process. “That is not characteristic of our process on campus.”

Stanberry explained that hearings in these cases are at times postponed because one party of the other, their attorneys or members of the panel signal that they are unavailable when the date comes around.

He declined to comment on allegations of sabotage after the complainant spoke out. He, however, confirmed knowledge of the notice for the complainant to cease certain activities.

“That is the subject of another investigation regarding authorisation given for that endeavour,” he offered. “But I don’t want to speak to it because I don’t want it to influence the sexual harassment case or conflate the two issues.”

Stanberry explained that the disciplinary panel is charged with making recommendations for sanctions, which could range from suspension to expulsion.

The evidence could also show that the accused is not guilty, he added.

“We allow that process to go independently and we don’t intervene. When we get a recommendation, it is considered,” said the campus registrar, noting that while he did not have the exact number, the university has had “a few” similar cases in the past year.

“The university is part of the society, so we are going to have our fair share of incidents. As a university, we have ensured that we not only put in place the proper systems and procedures to deal with such cases when they arise, but also that we provide enough information and public education regarding how to behave appropriately,” he continued, listing a slew of support services for victims.

The Sunday Gleaner also made contact with University Registrar Dr Maurice Smith, who would be informed of matters relating to the regional office. He declined to comment on the case at hand and also on the number of sexual harassment cases filed against senior officials.

According to the Ministry of Culture, Gender, Entertainment and Sport, if the harassment takes place at the workplace, the victim should inform the human resources manager, and if the case is not addressed, the complainant can report the matter to the police.

If the harassment takes place outside of the workplace, the matter should be reported to the police, which will advise complainants of the appropriate channels for recourse.

The complainant showed The Sunday Gleaner two receipts for reports filed with the campus and Papine police. She said they did little to investigate, informing her that the case was an internal matter.

corey.robinson@gleanerjm.com