Robin C.

DesCamp
Attorney at Law
3235 SW Gale Avenue
Portland, OR 97239

March 4, 2021

Background
Ph.D University of Washington Educational Psychology 1998
1998-2005 University of Wisconsin Oshkosh
2005-present Pacific University
Tenure: 2006
Thomas S. Thompson Distinguished Professorship-2008-2010
Dr. Paxton returned to teaching Fall, 2020, after a half-year sabbatical. According to Pacific
University policy, any professors who take sabbatical must agree to teach full-time for two
years when they return. Therefore, he was committed to a minimum of another two years
employment with Pacific.

Chronology of Events
Friday, October 9, 2020 
Dr. Paxton receives (but does not see) an email around 2PM from Ms. Jennifer Yruegas 1
demanding a meeting that afternoon.  Ms. Yruegas serves in five separate roles at Pacific
University, some of which have inherent conflicts:
● General Counsel
● Title IX Coordinator
● Head of HR
● Head of Student Health Center
● Associate Dean of the Business School

She also maintains a private practice.

Dr. Paxton was not checking email because it was Friday afternoon. His wife, Kelly Paxton, had
received an earlier text around 2:20 on her mobile phone.  She did not see the text, because
she was driving at the time. At approximately 2:35 she received a call from Ms. Yruegas.  She
gave her General Counsel title and asked for Dr. Paxton (why she contacted Dr. Paxton’s wife,
rather than Dr. Paxton himself, is a question only Ms. Yruegas can answer, but I believe it was a
part of her intense intimidation campaign to force him to resign). Ms. Paxton called her
husband to the phone, and he took a brief call with Ms. Yruegas, during which she demanded
that he be present on a Zoom call at 3:00 PM that same day.

1
Ms. Yruegas struggles with ethics and honesty, as reflected by a lawsuit filed against her by former clients in 2018
in which she was accused of stealing $580,000 from them. She quickly settled the matter after hiring criminal
defense counsel. I can provide the complaint and case file upon request.

1
As ordered, Dr. Paxton joined the Zoom call at 3:00 PM. Also present was Leif Gustavson, Dean
of the College of Education.  Dr. Paxton was quickly told that he was being suspended (with
pay), and that other instructors would be taking over his classes. Dr. Paxton was shocked and
understandably deeply upset. During this call, Ms. Yruegas berated and bullied him, in an
extremely angry and snide tone, and accused him of violating the civil rights of his students by
relaying an anecdote to them in his classes concerning gender (Exhibit A to this letter is a
description of the anecdote). She said that if he did not resign, she would initiate a Title IX
sexual misconduct investigation against him, and he would be terminated as a result.

Ms. Yruegas also said that even though she believed Dr. Paxton had violated Title IX, she would
not conduct an investigation, so long as he agreed to resign no later than the next Monday,
October 12, 2020. No details of any kind that would call for a suspension or investigation under
Title IX or any Pacific policy were described to Dr. Paxton during that meeting, or at any time
since.

Ms. Yruegas had clearly rehearsed her lines and coordinated with Dean Gustavson. Dr. Paxton
was not allowed to respond to the torrent of accusations and threats. Shaken, at approximately
3:40 he asked his wife to come into the room and join the call. Dr. Paxton said to his wife, “I
think I am getting fired.” Ms. Yruegas continued to threaten the Title IX investigation or the
alternative “soft landing.” She indicated that any Title IX investigation would be very public and
fraught in the context of the ongoing “Pacific Doesn’t Care” situation. 2 She reminded him that
because of that situation, the campus was a “tinderbox,” and he could expect to have students
protesting at his office, and at his home.3

From that point, it became even worse. Ms. Yruegas threatened that Dr. Paxton would face a
“public trial” for being racist, sexist, anti-LGBTQ, and antisemitic, despite the lack of evidence
that he is any of these things. When accused with being antisemitic, Dr. Paxton informed Ms.
Yruegas and Dean Gustavson not only that the allegation was untrue, but also that he is Jewish.

At that point, there was a long, awkward pause.

When they resumed, Ms. Yruegas and Dean Gustavson resumed pressuring Dr. Paxton into
what they were referencing as the “soft landing.” Under the “soft landing” scenario, Dr. Paxton
would be generously “allowed” to resign with a severance package, along with an agreed-upon
statement to be made upon his resignation. Further, Ms. Yruegas threatened Dr. Paxton that
his ability to secure new employment would be severely restricted if he were the subject of a
Title IX investigation.

2
“Pacific Doesn’t Care” was student and staff reaction to Pacific’s mishandling of a sex abuse case at their
University. Details available upon request.
3
Pacific University had gone into lockdown because of the “Pacific Doesn’t Care” situation, and advised faculty to
avoid their own homes, as a student was allegedly roaming campus with a gun. Therefore, Dr. Paxton took this as a
direct threat against his safety, and the safety of his family.

2
Dr. Paxton did not want to resign for many reasons, including his happiness at Pacific, his age,
and the difficulty of securing another tenured position. Ms. Yruegas responded to these
concerns by glibly offering that Dr. Paxton is young enough to easily get another professor
position, which is wildly wrong for many reasons, including:

1) Dr. Paxton is 61 years old; and

2) Even if he were 39 years old, tenured hiring at universities in Oregon and elsewhere at this
time is basically at a standstill, due to COVID-19 and the economic collapse.

At this point in the call, Ms. Yruegas warned Dr. Paxton to not contact anyone. Clearly, she did
not want him to speak to a lawyer. They required that he immediately turn over his teaching
materials. These included instructor access to Moodle, Box, and Zoom accounts which included
recordings of all classes. Dr. Paxton was told that Title IX language specifies that he must make
a decision to resign by Monday, October 12, or the investigation would have to proceed on
Monday under the Title IX statute “timing”.4

The call ended at approximately 4 PM. Ms. Yruegas said she would get to work on a severance
agreement for Dr. Paxton’s review, and told him she could secure 6 months to a year of
severance, including benefits, from the university. When the proposed “Voluntary Separation
and Release Agreement” arrived via email at 5:18 PM the same day, Dr. Paxton was dismayed
to see it only included three months of severance.5 The proposed agreement also included
specific language stating that if he signed the agreement, he would not be investigated by the
university. This language was also in the body of the email. Please see Exhibit B to this letter
for the email and the proposed severance agreement.

Saturday, October 10, 2020 

Dr. Paxton worked over the next 24 hours to ensure class materials were transferred to Anita
Zijdemans-Boudreau (Director of the School of Learning and Teaching) and Dan Wood (an
instructor), including course content that was developed and owned by him under the Pacific
University Intellectual Property Policy. Despite his disbelief over what was happening, Dr.
Paxton complied promptly and thoroughly, because he didn’t want his students to suffer any
consequences from the improper actions of Pacific University. 

That same day, Dr. Paxton’s wife ran into Robin DesCamp (me), at the gym. I am a lawyer,
which Mrs. Paxton knows, and she confided in me what had transpired since Friday, October
9th, 2020. I told her under no circumstances should her husband consider resigning without

4
Of course, this is untrue. Not only is a university precluded from using threats of Title IX investigations as a tool by
which to rid themselves of tenured older faculty, but there are no statutory requirements that an investigation
must be brought within one or two business days of notification to the university. Ms. Yruegas’ actions are in
violation of ORPC (Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct) 1.2(c), ORPC 8.4(a)(3), ORPC 8.4(a)(4), and ORPC 8.4(a)
(7), and possibly others.
5
In addition, the agreement stated on Page 1, Paragraph !(d) that Dr. Paxton had been advised to seek advice from
independent tax advisors, which was not true. Similarly, Paragraph 8 on page 4 notes he has been “advised to
consult with an attorney and had the opportunity to do so.” Neither of these things were true.

3
speaking to a lawyer first, and that if her description of Pacific’s actions were accurate, that I
believed they had significant legal liability in this matter.

Sunday, October 11, 2020

I met with Dr. Paxton and his wife. While I cannot discuss the particulars of that conversation in
this document, I can tell you that Dr. Paxton has not resigned from Pacific University.

Monday, October 12, 2020

I contacted Ms. Yruegas on behalf of Dr. Paxton, informed her that I was representing him, and
asked her if we could have a call. Her response was “Thank you for letting me know. No need
for a call at this time I will proceed with the investigation protocol.  I can send you the formal
notification for your client of the investigation initiation and the suspension occurring during
the investigation period.  I will pass on your information to the investigation team that I will
obtain today.”

Monday, October 12, 2020 (cont.)

I emailed back and asked if this was a Title IX investigation, letting her know that the comments
allegedly made by Dr. Paxton in class clearly did not rise to the level of a Title IX complaint. Ms.
Yruegas responded, “We will be enlisting a third party to determine what if any laws are
implicated and to make a finding. The students have said the impact of the conduct has
negatively impacted their seeking of an education based on their sex and or orientation,
therefore, Title IX may well be implicated.” 

She then told me she was turning this matter over to outside counsel (Miller Nash Graham and
Dunn in Portland, OR), and wrote, “I will provide formal notification of the suspension with pay
during this time.  I will also alert you as to any publicity that is occurring on campus related to
this matter as our students have been very vocal as of late on these issue.(sic)”
 
Below is the “Notice of Paid Administrative Leave,” which you can see contains no information
concerning why Dr. Paxton was being suspended, investigated, and how long the process could
expect to last. 6 The Notice promises “further details regarding this matter” would be provided
over the “coming days and weeks.” In fact, “details” have, as of the date of this letter, never
been provided.

6
Although Pacific first called this a “suspension,” they later insisted this was an “administrative leave.” When I
asked for the Pacific “Administrative Leave” policy, I was told one does not exist. That is highly doubtful.

4
5
Monday, October 12, 2020 (cont.)
It is important to note that, as of the date this letter to you is signed, we have never received
the “details” concerning what Dr. Paxton said was allegedly so offensive. In fact, it took until
December 8, 2020, for Pacific to even send the “Notice of Allegations” to both me and my
client. Please refer to Exhibit C to review the Notice, which is undated, and free from both
context and specific allegations of any conduct that constitutes a Title IX violation. Of course,
we could easily determine the words and context if Pacific simply provided us with the Zoom
recordings. They will not. More on that later.

For two months, Pacific refused to even put the allegations in writing concerning behavior they
deemed was so outrageous that he should be immediately, without any sort of due process
owed to a tenured professor, be thrown off campus. Two months. And when they finally did,
they were not specific at all.

In fact, this suspension is violative of the language under 4.11.5 in the Pacific University Faculty
and Governance Handbook, attached to this letter as Exhibit D. University policy is clearly set
forth: “If immediate harm to themselves or others is threatened by their continuance, faculty
members may be suspended while the termination process takes place.”

I again emailed Ms. Yruegas, stating “I want to note for the record that you told Professor
Paxton that if he settled this with you today, you would not have to conduct a Title IV (sic)
investigation. You also told him that Title IV (sic)7 deadline requirements demanded that he
make a decision on settlement by today. Would you care to clarify those positions?”

Her reply was patently dishonest, as proven by the documents she herself drafted and emailed
to my client on October 9, 2020. She stated,
“Other than to say the statements below are absolutely false and that I am disappointed in your
client making such allegations. I will leave all further communication to our outside counsel.” In
response, I simply forwarded to her the email and settlement agreement she sent to Dr. Paxton
on October 9, 2020, referenced earlier in this letter and attached as Exhibit B.

October 13, 2020

I requested a copy of Dr. Paxton’s personnel file from Pacific’s outside counsel, Naomi Haslitt, of
the Miller Nash Graham and Dunn firm.8

7
I’ll note here that sporadically, I mistakenly referred to Title IX as “Title IV.” I don’t do that anymore, but in the
beginning of this matter, it was an error made likely from having no experience with Title IX in my practice.
8
They did not allow us access to his personnel file until October 27, 2020, even though access could have been
given instantly. Incidentally, Naomi works for Pacific’s main lawyer at the firm, Tom Sand. Tom Sand is my least
favorite ex-husband. Portland is a very small town.

6
On the same day, students in Dr. Paxton’s classes were told by Pacific administrators that he
was “suspended while under investigation,” a gross violation of his privacy, and a highly
suggestive and misleading statement that has produced much gossip amongst his students and
co-faculty, along with other staff at the university.

October 16, 2020

I asked Ms. Haslitt when we could expect to find out who was the “independent third-party”
investigator looking into the matter, and when we would be contacted for Dr. Paxton’s
statement. She did not respond.

October 20, 2020

I asked Ms. Haslitt why Dr. Paxton was locked out of all his systems, including Moodle, Zoom,
Box, Google Docs, and email. She responded the next day, “It is typical to limit access to
University email and systems in this situation.” Again, “this situation” is an immediate
suspension for something a tenured professor said in class that a student found offensive in
some way, although we still don’t know exactly why. She also promised that Dr. Paxton would
receive his personnel file that day. He did not.

I also asked, again, for information about the investigator and the process. She did not respond.

October 21, 2020

I wrote an email to Ms. Haslitt which included, “I have not received any information from you
regarding the investigator or the investigation. You had indicated previously I would be hearing
from that person. I assume no investigation would be complete without speaking to the
accused. Or maybe that’s not how Pacific intends to proceed in this matter.” She did not
respond.

October 22, 2020

Frustrated, I wrote to Ms. Haslitt (as part of a larger email regarding lack of access to my client’s
personnel file and his suspension), “I have further asked repeatedly to be put in touch with the
investigator retained by Pacific so that I can conduct our investigation, and coordinate with the
investigator to ensure both sides achieve a fair and complete analysis of what transpired. You
have failed to even tell me who it is, even after assuring me earlier that the investigator and I
would be able to communicate with each other. An expeditious resolution of this matter would
seem to demand that person and I are able to coordinate.”

I also wrote,

“I wish to again state for the record that this suspension is violative of the language under
4.11.5 in the Pacific University Faculty and Governance Handbook. University policy is clearly
set forth: ‘If immediate harm to themselves or others is threatened by their continuance,
faculty members may be suspended while the termination process takes place.’ Obviously,
there is no immediate harm threatened here, to anyone. That language is telling, because it
appears that given Dr. Paxton’s suspension, he is actually already engaged, albeit against his

7
will, in the termination process. Interestingly, that language goes on to note when a faculty
member will continue to receive their pay during suspension pending termination: ‘…for
reasons not involving gross dereliction of duty, grave professional or personal misconduct, or
moral turpitude…’ My point is obvious, I assume.

“Finally, I’d direct you to 4.11.8 of the Handbook, and ask you to advise me where we are in this
process demanded by the policy. As far as I can tell, section I(a) has not been properly followed,
and even if you assumed it had, 1(b) has not.”

I received no response.

October 27, 2020

I emailed Ms. Haslitt noting it had been three weeks since I requested my client’s personnel file,
and yet they had not sent it. She responded that Dr. Paxton would receive the files that day,
then noted ominously, “Dr. Saxton (sic) must not interfere with the investigation as it moves
forward.” Neither Dr. Paxton nor I were interfering with anything; we were simply trying to
access his HR file.

Ashley (last name unknown) called Kelly Paxton on October 27, 2020 at approximately 9:00am
asking for Dr. Paxton’s personal email. Kelly asked Ashley if this was for his personnel file.
Ashley stated yes. Kelly provided both his personal cell phone number and new personal email
address.

October 30, 2020

By this time, Pacific had finally given my client access to his electronic personnel file. When I
reviewed that file, I noted that Jennifer Yruegas had modified the file labeled “2015-2016
Academic Year” on October 20, 2020.

I have asked Ms. Haslitt on multiple occasions, including October 30, 2020, why Ms. Yruegas
was modifying Dr. Paxton’s 2015-2016 personnel file after she suspended him in 2020, and
what specific modifications were made. They have refused to answer, citing privacy concerns
under FERPA. Of course, that makes no sense. We are asking what was added to Dr. Paxton’s
file, and why. We are not seeking protected private information on any students.

8
On October 30, 2020, I had a call with Ms. Haslitt. She would not tell me whether or not this
was a Title IX investigation, nor would she tell me what the specific allegations were against Dr.
Paxton. She repeatedly denied he was “suspended,” but insisted that he was on “administrative
leave.” I told her that since he was not suspended, he intended to resume teaching the next
day. She said he was not allowed to do that. I asked what Pacific policy spells out what
“administrative leave” means, and the parameters of administrative leave. She promised she
would send me the policy (she later claimed no such policy exists, which is highly unlikely).

During this call, Ms. Haslitt assured me she would do nothing to interfere with my ability to
investigate this matter on behalf of my client. In truth, I have been thwarted at every turn to
obtain even the most basic information on his behalf.9 It’s a good thing I am extraordinarily
resourceful.

November 3, 2020
I followed up the call with Ms. Haslitt, asking for a copy of the “Administrative Leave Policy.” I
also forwarded her a copy of an email from Jennifer Yruegas, Pacific’s General Counsel/Head of
HR/Title IX Coordinator/etc., to me in which she stated that Dr. Paxton was suspended (as
opposed to being on administrative leave). Ms. Haslitt did not respond.

November 4, 2020
I emailed Ms. Haslitt, notifying her that Dr. Paxton had filed a complaint with the EEOC for age
discrimination. I asked again for the administrative leave policy, and asked about scheduling
witness interviews and a meeting with the investigator.

She responded that neither I nor my client could impede the investigation, and that I could not
interview the Director or the Dean of the College of Education, because they are “represented
parties.” She stated that the investigator, Lori Watson, would be reaching out to talk to my
client. As of the date of this letter, she never has. She asked me for details of his age
discrimination allegation, so Pacific could “investigate” his claim. For obvious reasons, I let her
know we would let the EEOC conduct the investigation, as Pacific is wholly incapable of doing so
in a transparent and honest manner.

My response to her asked again why Ms. Yruegas was altering my client’s 2015-2016 personnel
file, pointed out the inherent conflict of Ms. Yruegas serving as the TItle IX Coordinator in this
matter, and asked her why Ms. Yruegas initially told me my client was “suspended,” but now
Pacific was insisting he was on “Administrative Leave.”

November 11-16, 2020

9
Ms. Haslitt seems to be taking the position that I am precluded from interviewing any employees, board
members, or students at Pacific University, claiming that they are “represented parties,” and therefore, legal ethics
rules forbid me from contacting them. This is a gross misinterpretation of the rule against lawyers contacting a
“represented party” in a case.

9
Ms. Haslitt finally replied to my November 4 email, and told me (regarding Ms. Yruegas
modification to my client’s 2015-2016 personnel file), she could not disclose that information
because it was “protected from disclosure by FERPA.” Several emails went back and forth on
the investigation, rumors on campus, etc. No substantive responses were ever received.

November 17, 2020

It had now been about 6 weeks since my client was suspended, and we had still never heard
from the investigator - only what her name was. On this date, I emailed the investigator:

“Dear Ms Watson:
I represent Dr. Richard Paxton in the matter of his employment with Pacific University,
and his suspension therefrom. Under Title IX and the Pacific employee handbook, Dr.
Paxton has a right to investigate the claims against him. Pacific University has refused us
access to almost any information or people in order to assess this situation. Alarmingly,
Pacific will not even provide me a copy of the formal complaint that would have kicked
off this Title IX investigation, and has never told my client specifically what he is being
accused of.

I have a call this morning which requires, at a bare minimum, either a copy of that
complaint or a summary of the specific Title IX allegations against my client. There is no
conceivable reason why this cannot be provided to me. I have asked Ms. Haslitt for this
information on roughly 5 or 6 occasions and have received nothing, so now I am asking
you. I give you my assurances that I will not use that complaint in any manner at this
point other than to ascertain what my client is being accused of. For example, at this
point, I do not intend to contact the complainant and seek an interview.

Thank you very much for your prompt attention to this urgent matter.
Robin DesCamp”

She never responded to that email. As of the date of this letter, she has never contacted my
client or me. Interestingly, this “independent investigator” is known for not actually
interviewing key witnesses in her investigations, in order to come to a conclusion that benefits
the organization paying her for her work. Please see this story about her:
https://www.wweek.com/news/2021/01/06/the-oregon-department-of-justice-cleared-two-
lawyers-of-harassment-claims-then-a-key-witness-asked-why-he-wasnt-interviewed/

November 20 2020
I sent a litigation hold letter to Ms. Haslitt.

December 3, 2020
I email Ms. Haslitt again requesting access to all of Dr. Paxton’s Zoom classes.
“Dear Naomi:
I need access to all of Dr. Paxton’s classes conducted via Zoom, and Pacific has locked him out
of that account. Please confirm you will provide me access so I can continue my investigation on

10
behalf of Dr. Paxton. He will not, nor will I, use the account in any way except to review the
classes.

It has now been 8 weeks since my client was:

● threatened that if he didn’t quit he would be the subject of a sexual
assault/harassment investigation
● told that if he did quit, no such investigation would take place (in violation of the
law and legal ethics rules)
● suspended without valid reason - or any reason defined with particularity
● locked out of the Pacific systems with which he communicates with numerous
other educational institutions, and the like. In addition, no “auto response” is on
either his phone or email, so anyone trying to reach him is being given the
impression he is either incredibly rude and non-responsive, or dead.

As a result, Dr. Paxton has been the subject of rumors and innuendo both at Pacific University,
and elsewhere. The damage to his professional reputation is compounded daily, and yet, he still
has not even been contacted by the investigator Pacific allegedly retained to look into this
matter.

Please confirm I can access the Zoom lectures. Thank you very much.”

Ms. Haslitt did not respond.

December 7, 2020
I again email Ms. Haslitt:

“Dear Naomi:
Please arrange for my access to all of Dr. Paxton’s online classes Fall 2020. There is no
conceivable reason for Pacific to block our ability to review those classes. Please also tell me
when the Title IX investigator plans to interview Dr. Paxton. I need to ensure both our calendars
are clear for this process. Pacific’s continuing refusal to allow me to conduct the most cursory
of investigations on behalf of my client, along with their delay in conducting their own
investigation, as well as the bullet points listed below, are tantamount to constructive
discharge. I urge you to move this matter forward. My client’s reputation is suffering, and this
situation has left him extremely distraught, suffering from insomnia, depression, and anxiety.

Empathy is a wonderful tool in the practice of law, Naomi. You might consider how you would
feel if MNGD suspended you without giving you a reason, cut you off from all your clients and
colleagues, and told you they were investigating you for an undefined violation of legal ethics or
the law that could destroy your career. Imagine the MNGD lawyer then told your counsel you
could do your own investigation to figure out what the hell led to your suspension, but then
blocked every single effort to do so. Imagine this went on for a minimum of two months.

11
We know how people whisper in the legal community. Those whispers are much more
prevalent in the world of academia. Pacific’s actions are rendering my client’s reputation
worthless going forward. If I do not hear from you by the end of the day today, granting us
access to the Zoom classes, I will take the next steps necessary to ensure Pacific allows my
investigation and protection of my client.
-Robin”

December 7, 2020 (cont.)

Ms. Haslitt responds in regards to my requests on November 19, December 3 and today’s email.

“If Dr. Paxton believes that there are relevant video recordings of classes on Zoom, he should
direct the Title IX investigator to those. As a part of the Title IX process, Dr. Paxton will have an
opportunity to review all evidence that is directly related to the allegations, whether or not the
investigator relies on it, at least 10 days before she completes the investigation report.”

The email also includes “With respect to an “auto-response” on Dr. Paxton’s e-mail,
Dr. Paxton is on administrative leave and should not be engaging in
communications in his role as an employee of Pacific. He is not restricted from
communicating with any individuals that he needs to in his personal capacity from
his personal accounts.”

December 8, 2020
I again email Ms. Haslitt requesting the Pacific “Administrative Leave” policy, since Pacific
maintains my client is not “suspended,” but rather, is on “administrative leave.” I believe this
was my 4th or 5th request for that policy.

Ms. Haslitt responds regarding prior requests made by me for Pacific University’s Administrative
Leave policy.
“Pacific does not have a written policy on administrative leave in the manner that you describe
below.” Ms. Haslitt also writes “Administrative leave as part of the Title IX process is provided
for as part of Pacific’s Sex Misconduct Policy/Title IX Sex Misconduct Process
(https://www.pacificu.edu/node/18293;
https://pacificu.app.box.com/s/bqvqyp1tqqulerxcqjmcc72t586i4gvp), which I have sent to you
on multiple occasions. It is also discussed in the Informational Meeting Checklist and Process
Acknowledgement that I sent to you on November 19, which is attached again to this e-mail.”

She goes on to state that she will NOT provide a copy of the Formal Complaint, even though the
Pacific Policy she linked in her email specifically states that the accused will receive a copy of
the formal complaint.

The process policy for Title IX Sex Misconduct process was supposed to be shared with my
client at an “informational meeting” right after the Formal Complaint was filed. It was not.

12
Instead, it was given to me by Ms. Haslitt in late November. I am attaching the policy to this
letter as Exhibit E.

I ask, again, for the Zoom classes. She does not respond.

December 16, 2020

Ms. Haslitt finally addresses the Zoom requests:
“The University is evaluating your requests for access/copies of the Zoom video recordings of
the classes at issue, including its student records obligations under FERPA and as described in
the University’s Privacy and Confidentiality Policy, and will get back to you about it.”

In other words, Pacific is trying to twist FERPA into a law that precludes me and my client seeing
videos of the classes he led, and which are the subject of his suspension and the “sex
misconduct” investigation. In reality, the law is clear in this area: when there is tension between
FERPA and the due process requirements of Title IX. Title IX controls.

December 16, 2020 (Cont.)

Of course, I am stunned by this creative interpretation of FERPA. I respond:

“Read the policy. You are conflating directory information with education records, and not
accidentally. Pacific’s self-serving interpretations (such as they are) of FERPA and its own
policies is making things worse for your client. Pacific gave the Zoom classes to the investigator.
Pacific claims it will give us the classes 10 days before the hearing, but refuses to provide them
any earlier. This position is unreasonable, there is no basis in logic for it, and you know it.”

December 21, 2020

I emailed Ms. Haslitt asking for access to student course evaluations, which my client needs to
hone his teaching, and which would be helpful for this process. I also inquire, again, about
Pacific’s conduct in informing the students about my client’s absence, on the first day he was
not present due to his suspension.

“Please also answer my earlier question regarding why Pacific told my client’s students that he
was ‘suspended pending investigation.’ Several witnesses have reported this to me. This was a
gross violation of his privacy rights.”
Ms. Haslitt has never answered this question.

December 22, 2020

Dr. Paxton sends email to various Pacific University professors and staff.
“I would like to add an agenda item to the Jan. 28 meeting of the Faculty Senate, which I plan to
attend online. The agenda item is: Accusations, Retaliation, Suspension, and Forced
Resignations of Pacific Faculty and Staff. Please confirm you will add this to the meeting agenda,
and please confirm you will send me a meeting invite at this email address. Since the University
has locked me out of my Zoom account, I will need you to email me the Zoom invitation at this

13
email address. I have been told I am on ‘paid administrative leave.’ Therefore, there should be
no issue with me placing an agenda item, or attending the meeting. According to the Pacific
University website, all faculty are invited to attend Faculty Senate meetings. Thank you very
much for placing this important issue on the agenda.”

This request has been denied.

December 29, 2020

My email to Ms. Haslitt:

“Good morning. I spent some time recently researching FERPA. Can you please explain to me:
1. How FERPA is implicated in my review of the Zoom classes, and
2. How providing the Zoom classes ten days before the hearing, but not a day before that,
solves the FERPA problem? Please point me to the portion of the statute that states student
information can be released, but only 10 days before a disciplinary hearing.

I look forward to your response. Please know that since it has been three months (plus) since
the lectures noted in the “Notice of Allegations” (which contained no specific allegations, mind
you), Dr. Paxton’s recollection is growing fainter by the day. As such, he will not speak with the
investigator until he has had time to review the recordings. Since the investigator has had those
recordings for quite some time, I’m sure she would agree it is only fair that he can refresh his
recollection as to what was said in class that Pacific feels warranted immediate suspension and
constructive termination.”

In a subsequent email the same day, I asked once again why Jennifer Yruegas was modifying my
client’s personnel file for the 2015-2016 academic year on October 20, 2020.

December 31, 2020

I email Ms. Haslitt stating it will be 12 weeks since Dr. Paxton was suspended/constructively
discharged and he still has not heard from the investigator.

January 4, 2021
My email to Ms. Haslitt:
“Dear Naomi:
I am again reiterating my request for:
1. The Zoom recordings for all classes that include things my client allegedly said that prompted
this improper Title IX investigation;
2. The recording that was made of the conversation with my client on October 9, 2020, with
your client’s General Counsel to which I have referred to earlier; and
3. Specific allegations that give rise to a ‘Sexual Misconduct’ investigation under either Title IX,
or any other supposed violations of Pacific’s policies. The ‘Notice of Allegations’ failed to set
forth specifics, context, and allegations which pertain to Title IX.

14
As you know, my client was suspended effective Oct 9, 2020. You have promised me the ability
to investigate the allegations against my client but your client has tried to prevent any
investigation by me. Your assertion that FERBA prevents my client and I from reviewing the
Zoom-recorded classes has no valid basis under FERPA.

As I have told you, on several occasions, my client and I cannot prepare for any interview or
hearing without being given access to the classes at issue. I look forward to Pacific providing
those recordings to us, so we can prepare for the hearing.

Finally, I referenced First Amendment rights in an earlier email. I do understand that as a

private university, Pacific is not necessarily bound by the First Amendment. However, they are
certainly bound by Chapter 4 of the handbook, which describes academic freedom.”

January 5, 2021
Once again, I am trying to get a copy of the “Formal Complaint” that supposedly initiated this
Title IX investigation. I had asked Ms. Haslitt for this document numerous times. On this date I
emailed her, quoting Pacific’s own Title IX Sex Misconduct Process policy, attached to this letter
as Exhibit E:

“Naomi:
Pacific’s Title IX policy states: 
The University will conduct an investigation into an incident of Sexual Misconduct under the
Title IX Sexual Misconduct Process when the jurisdictional requirements of Title IX are met and
a Formal Complaint is filed either by a Complainant or the Title IX Coordinator. (emphasis
added).

It later states: The Formal Complaint Form contains basic information about the allegations
made against the Respondent, such as time, date, location, and a brief description of the
incident. The Formal Complaint Form must contain sufficient detail to permit the Respondent to
understand the charges being brought and to be able to adequately respond. The Formal
Complaint Form will be shared with the Respondent. (emphasis added)

I have asked you on multiple occasions to provide me a copy of the formal complaint. You have
refused. I am asking you again to provide that today. While I understand that this entire process
is a sham, it would behoove your client not to keep proving that fact over and over again.
-Robin”

She did not respond.

January 11th and 14th, 2021

I emailed Ms. Haslitt again, quoting Pacific’s policy, and demanding a copy of the Formal
Complaint.

15
January 15, 2021
After months of me requesting the Formal Complaint, Ms. Haslitt finally responds:
“Hi Robin,
 A complainant may trigger the Sexual Misconduct processes by using the University’s Formal
Complaint Form, or by submitting a different document. When a Formal Complaint Form is
used, the University’s policy provides that the form will be given to the respondent.  If a
different document is used, the University gives the respondent a Notice of Allegations that
describes the allegations as Title IX requires.  In this case, no Formal Complaint Form was
submitted and none exists.  The University followed its policies by providing Dr. Paxton a Notice
of Allegations, which describes all of the allegations against him. 
 
Thank you,
Naomi”

Now, this is incredible to me, because early on, she had told me that we would not be getting a
copy of the Formal Complaint. This is the first time she is alleging one does not exist, probably
because I am finally quoting Pacific policy to her that it must be provided to my client. I
responded:

“Naomi:
That is not what the policy says and inconsistent with both your prior statements and past
practice by Pacific. Pacific’s Title IX policy is crystal-clear. An investigation can only proceed
upon receipt of a formal complaint, which will then be provided to the accused.

The University will conduct an investigation into an incident of Sexual Misconduct under the
Title IX Sexual Misconduct Process when the jurisdictional requirements of Title IX are met and
a Formal Complaint is filed either by a Complainant or the Title IX Coordinator. (emphasis
added)

Because Pacific is in violation of its own policy, this investigation is unwarranted. I demand an
immediate end to this improper investigation, which is not actually an investigation at all. I look
forward to getting down to the nitty gritty of how all this came about in depositions.

It has now been 98 days since my client was improperly suspended from his job, and
constructively terminated as a result, and he has still never been contacted by the investigator
or been provided access to the Zoom classes at issue. Your client’s General Counsel (Jennifer
Yruegas) is a witness in this case, but is still making decisions about it. That’s astounding.”

February 1, 2021
The American Association of University Professors sends the following letter to Pacific
University President Leslie Hallick:
Letter from AAUP to Hallick

16
February 20, 2021
Pacific University President Leslie Hallick responds to the AAUP letter with a document that
uses many words to say nothing. I sent you that letter this morning, along with my analysis of it.
We have twice told Pacific that Paxton waives confidentiality so they can fully respond to our
allegations and the concerns of the AAUP. Of course, they are not doing so.

February 24, 2021

I email Haslitt and ask again if Yruegas is involved in either the Paxton matter or that of my
other client (Hamilton).
“Dear Naomi:
I have asked several times for assurances that Jennifer Yruegas is recused from any actions or
activities related to either Professor Paxton or Professor Hamilton. I have asked you to confirm
that will be the case. You have declined to do so.
I have evidence that indicates Jennifer is still involved in both cases. Because I have not
received confirmation from you that has recused from these matters, but rather an email
advising I not worry about this subject, I am forced to submit a complaint against Ms. Yruegas
to the Oregon State Bar. Her involvement in either case, while being a witness and an alleged
wrong-doer, creates a clear conflict under the ethics rules (to say nothing of why Pacific would
let such a clear conflict continue).”

Ms. Haslitt’s response confirms that Yruegas is still involved, which any lawyer or college
administrator knows is terribly unethical:
“Hi Robin, 
I am traveling out of town this week through today and starting to catch up on email as I
return. Can you provide specific information about how Jennifer Yruegas’s involvement with Dr.
Paxton and Dr. Hamilton, respectively, creates conflict issues? Specifics with respect to each
would be helpful for Pacific‘s evaluation of your conflict assertions. It would also be helpful to
have some time after my return to consider the information you provide. 

Thank you, 
Naomi”

After that exchange I wrote to Haslitt and told her that her email confirms Yruegas’ continuing
decision-making involvement in both cases. Haslitt did not refute that assertion.

February 25, 2021

Ms. Haslitt and I have scheduled a call to discuss both Paxton and Hamilton. Prior to our call, I
sent her this email:
“Before our call, can you please send me the Pacific policy that allows for
suspension/administrative leave of either a student or faculty member when matters of ‘equity’
are involved? You told me that Dr. Paxton’s suspension/administrative leave was allowable
under the college’s Title IX sex misconduct policy. That policy allows for a respondent to be
removed from campus in cases involving safety issues. Dr. Hallick’s response to the AAUP was
curious on several levels, but this was especially odd:

17
She wrote, ‘Also, at the outset of a complaint, determinations of safety and equity mandate
that a review occur to afford both the complainant and respondent a safe and equitable
environment. When issues of safety and ongoing bias are raised, Pacific University works to
create separation between the conflicted parties—this can include interim measures of
transferring a student from a class or placing an employee on paid administrative leave.’ (Bold
emphasis added.) 

This appears to be Pacific trying to solve a very big problem by adding the word ‘equity’ and the
phrases ‘equitable environment’ and ‘ongoing bias’ to this letter – phrases that exist nowhere
in the Title IX statute, regs, or the Pacific Handbook or policies that I have reviewed. President
Hallick (or actually, the person who wrote this letter, and that was not President Hallick)
appears to made this up out of whole cloth to deal with the troublesome fact that will haunt
them in our future litigation: the suspension, even though paid, was wildly out-of-step not only
with the law and their own policies and history, but also with how any university operates
within a similar fact scenario. Students don’t get to just have professors they don’t like kicked
off campus. Or at least, things don’t work that way at colleges not called ‘Pacific University.’

I am always open to the fact that I may have gotten this wrong, which is why I am hoping you
can send along documentation that allows for an indefinite suspension/involuntary
administrative leave when the safety of anyone was never even remotely at issue. Thanks very
much,

Robin”

Ms. Haslitt did not respond to that email. I resent it today, and still no response. She can’t
respond to it because she knows Hallick has backed the university into a corner by arguing that
issues of “equity” allow faculty to be suspended without notice, cause, or due process, when
the faculty handbook specifically states that is not allowed.

February 25, 2021

I again emailed Ms. Haslitt regarding hiding behind FERPA as an excuse to not provide the Zoom
recordings of the classes at issue:

“Naomi:
Regarding Pacific’s claim that they cannot release the Zoom recordings to Dr. Paxton because of
FERPA, my understanding of The DeVos rule is that if there is a conflict between Title IX and
FERPA, the former supersedes the latter. Always. Do you agree or disagree?”

She did not respond to that message. I sent it again today and so far, no response. I understand
why she is not responding: she is a smart lawyer, and she knows that Title IX due process
requirements trump FERPA.

18
February 26, 2021

I emailed Ms. Haslitt explaining to her that the story in question does not even address
transgenderism:

“Dear Naomi:
The more I have thought about Professor Paxton's situation, the more ridiculous it seems
(although it is, obviously, not ridiculous for him).  The many procedural failures to conform to
the federal regulations for Title IX compliance are, of course, egregious, but the substance of
the main charge that initiated the complaint is absolutely laugh-out-loud ludicrous.  The
investigation is not just a violation of Professor Paxton's right to free speech or his right to
"profess" under the tenets of academic freedom, but his anecdotal joke, which was both funny
and self-directed, had absolutely nothing to do with transgender people, so how the hell it
could be construed as transphobic is beyond my comprehension.  

The anecdote pertained to female impersonators, also known as “drag queens,” who are by
and large cis-gendered males, the majority of whom are likely to be gay.  The remainder are
straight males.  Whereas it is not impossible to have a transgendered male (or female) be a
female impersonator, it's pretty unlikely, because trans people tend to view their gender
identity very seriously, while female impersonators unashamedly mock gender identity.  

The complainant confuses sexual orientation with gender identity, but she is the person who
raised the issue of transphobia, whereas Professor Paxton never even alluded to anything
remotely connected to transgender individuals.  To reiterate, the charge of transphobia itself is
not germane to Professor Paxton's statement and should have been dismissed summarily by
the Title IX coordinator, if she had a clue what she was doing.

Additionally, Professor Paxton's comments in class were not pejorative.  Mistaking drag queens
for attractive women is flattering, not denigrating, because masquerading as "hot" women is
their point.  Mistaking female impersonators for transgender people is, however, very insulting
to both groups. Of course, none of this was really about the anecdote. It was pretext, because
Yruegas once again got someone in her sights.”

I received no response to that email.

Conclusion
Since that last email exchange, we have heard nothing from either Pacific or the investigator. I
have sent multiple emails requesting the Zoom classes, but Pacific refuses to provide access to
them. My client continues to suffer through the career-destroying indignity of being
disappeared off campus, and students being told he is “suspended because he is being
investigated.” The stink of sexual misconduct has permeated his life, and he did nothing wrong,
or remotely sexual.

19
20
 EXHIBIT A:
New Orleans Story (as told by Dr. Paxton)

Preface: This is a true anecdote meant to illustrate Schema Theory—one of the major theories
of how the human mind works. The famous Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget says we develop
schemas through a process of assimilation and accommodation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schema_(psychology)

This also touches on a broader theme from the class: that humans are pattern seeking animals.
We try to place anything we see into patterns we already know. For example, when you see a
car driving down the road, with the left blinker on for 10 full miles—what do you think? We
project our past experiences on new situations. We are constantly trying to place the things we
experience into preconceived patterns.

As I learned in graduate school, gender is one of the most studied aspects of schema theory.
Just think about how easy it is for you to distinguish a male from a female. A number of
examples are provided. For example, I show pictures of a crowd scene and ask students to
judge members of the crowd. This shows students pretty much all agree on the gender of
people in the picture—even when they are a hundred yards away or more, based only on how
they stand, walk, gesture, etc.. We judge this pretty much immediately. And it tells us how to
behave.

I give a number of examples—and, yes, I try to interest students by being a bit racy (although
on a PG level).

Now the story:

A few years ago, I attended the American Educational Research Association annual conference
in New Orleans, LA. At that conference, I attended a presentation by Howard Gardner (the
Harvard Educational Psychologist and MacArthur Grant winner—sometimes called the “Genius
Grant.” The class reads a number of chapters and articles by Gardner). I also gave my own
research presentation at the conference. This story illustrates how gender schemas (some of
our most “hardened” schemas) affected my behavior.

During my research presentation, there was a mixed crowd of academics. I wore a suit and tie,
and presented my research in very formal English. I wouldn’t have dreamed of swearing or
telling any off-colored jokes. I was nervous, but survived my presentation. After my work was
done, I went out on the town—to the Latin Quarter—with two old grad school buddies of mine.
The plan was to find some creole food and go have a few drinks and see some Jazz music (I’m a
big Jazz fan).

We found a good restaurant. During dinner, my behavior was quite different than during the
research presentation. Hanging out with three “dudes,” dressed casually, my language was

21
much less formal, and we felt free to swear and tell jokes. The fact of the matter is that I act
differently in a groups of guys than I do in a mixed group. My schemas are unconsciously telling
me how to behave in different social situations. While eating, we talked about where to go
next. We were looking for a hip bar with Jazz music. As we sat there, we noticed a bar across
the street. One of the things that got our attention was a group of frankly rather fine looking
ladies standing out front smoking. “Looks promising,” we said.

As we left the restaurant, we headed toward that bar. Coming closer, where these ladies in
short-shorts were still hanging out smoking, we noticed a sign above the door. It said: “Ya’ll
come in. World’s Best Female Impersonators.”

Suddenly our attitudes changed. Our schemas were put in disequilibrium. A few nervous
comments were exchanged and we quickly decided to go somewhere else. In downtown
Portland there is a famous drag bar called Darcelle’s. I, personally, have never been there.
Therefore, I have never built up schemas to tell me how to behave in front of female
impersonators. This manifested itself in making me feel uncomfortable. I’m sure, with a little
time and experience, I will feel perfectly comfortable at a drag bar, and my new schemas will
reach equilibrium and tell me how to behave properly.

22
 EXHIBIT B
Oct 9 Email from Yruegas and Proposed Agreement

From: "Yruegas, Jennifer E." <jennifer.yruegas@pacificu.edu>

Date: Friday, October 9, 2020 at 5:18 PM
To: "Paxton, Richard J." <paxton@pacificu.edu>
Subject: Offer

Richard,

Please review and let me know if you have questions. We can write in specifically what you’ve
(sic) want the communication to be. I made sure there was a clause that the Title IX
investigation would not occur. Let me know if you see other items that need to be added or
clarified.

I am available all weekend (503)866-1414 cell. Do not hesitate to call or email me.

Best,

Jennifer E. Yruegas
General Counsel | Assoc. VP HR | Assoc. Dean College of Business
Pacific University | 2043 College Way | Forest Grove, OR 97116
p: 503.352.2236|c: 503.866.1414 | jennifer.yruegas@pacificu.edu
Go Boxers! | 1-877-722-8648 | http://pacificu.edu
I am proud to be part of a community that inspires students to think, care, create, and pursue
justice in our world.
The information contained in this email transmission is confidential and is intended only for the
use of the individual or entity intended to receive it. It may contain information protected by
the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance
on the contents of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email
transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by return email and delete the
transmission.

23
 VOLUNTARY SEPARATION AND RELEASE AGREEMENT

This Voluntary Separation Agreement and Release (this “Agreement”) is executed on

____________ and is between _____, his/her heirs and assigns (collectively referred to as
“Employee”), and Pacific University and its affiliates, employees, officers, directors, members,
insurers, and agents (collectively referred to as “University”).

PURPOSE

University and Employee desire to enter into this Agreement in order to set forth the terms and
conditions of Employee’s voluntary separation, including certain benefits to which Employee
would not otherwise be entitled, and settlement of any claims, known or unknown, and a
covenant not to sue.

AGREEMENT

NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the covenants hereinafter set forth and for other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, Employee
and University agree as follows:

1. Voluntary Separation from Employment.

(a) Employee’s voluntary separation from employment with University will be

effective as of the close of business on _______________ (the “Separation Date”).

(b) Except as otherwise set forth in the Agreement, from and after the Separation Date,
Employee shall not be entitled to receive any further compensation or monies from University
or to receive any benefits or participate in a benefit plan or program of University.

(c) Employee acknowledges that all compensation due other than as stipulated herein, for any
and all wages, salary, bonuses, reimbursable expenses, and any similar payments due to
Employee from University as of the Separation Date were previously paid by to Employee.

24
(d) Employee acknowledges that they have been advised to consult with independent tax
advisors before signing this Agreement and accept all responsibility for the tax consequences of
their election. Employee understands that University disclaims all liability for tax consequences
of this Agreement.

(e) Employee understands the Severance to which she/he is entitled to under this Agreement
will be paid as regular pay at the typical payroll period following the expiration of the
revocation period (less legally required deductions and withholdings). Employee further
understands the Severance payment shall not include a contribution to the Employee’s 403(b)
plan based on the value of the Severance, nor shall it include post- retirement medical benefits.

2. Severance. Provided Employee complies with his/her obligations under this Agreement,
Employee shall be entitled to severance as follows:

(a) In exchange for the promises and release of claims contained in this Agreement, Employee
shall receive “Severance Payment” from the University in an amount equal to:

c (i) Three (3) months of regular full pay (less legally required deductions and
withholdings);
c (ii) Recommendation letter; and
c (iii) 6 months of healthcare coverage for Employee and her/his dependents if the
Employee selects COBRA coverage - with Pacific paying both the University and
Employee contribution directly to the COBRA carrier as currently calculated, unless
Employee obtains healthcare eligible employment before the sixth month period ends.

By signing below, Employee acknowledges that she/he will receive the Severance Payment
outlined in this Section in consideration for waiving his/her rights to claims referred to in this
Agreement and that she/he would not otherwise be entitled to the Severance Payment.
Employee further acknowledges and agrees that the consideration set forth in this Section
supersedes any rights or benefits under any employment agreement, which is extinguished in
its entirety.

(b) University shall not be obligated to make the Severance Payment until all of the following
conditions have been met:

c (i) Employee executes and delivers this Agreement;

c (ii) Employee does not revoke the Agreement within the 7-day revocation period
described in Section 10(a)(iii) of this Agreement; and

(iii) Employee has complied.

(c) Employee acknowledges that, except as expressly provided in this Agreement, Employee
shall receive no other salary, wages, advances, insurances, bonuses, vacation pay, paid time off,
benefits, or other monies or benefits from University at any time, and Employee agrees that

25
she/he is entitled to no other salary, wages, advances, benefits, insurances, bonuses, vacation
pay, paid time off or other monies of any nature from the University after the Separation Date.

(d) Employee agrees that she/he shall bear full responsibility for any tax liability owed by
Employee that may arise with respect to the payment of amounts payable under this
Agreement and any actions contemplated under this Agreement, and Employee agrees that
Employee shall indemnify and hold University harmless from any such tax liability, including,
but not limited to, any taxes, penalties and/or interest that are assessed by any tax authority in
connection with such payment or actions.

(e) Employee acknowledge and agree that she/he has not relied on any express or implied
representation of University or any of its lawyers, agents or representatives as to the tax
consequences of any payment provided pursuant to this Agreement.

3. Return of Property. Employee warrants that she/he will (a) return to University all University
property including without limitation, mailing lists, reports, files, memoranda, records,
computer hardware, software, credit cards, cell phones, door and file keys, computer access
codes or disks, parking or transportation passes, and other property which Employee received
or prepared or helped prepare in connection with his/her employment with University.

4. Tenure Release by Employee. As consideration for receiving the Severance to which

Employee shall be entitled under the Agreement, Employee acknowledges his/her previous
resignation and hereby forever relinquishes his/her tenure or extended-term faculty status, as
the case may be, to be effective at Employee’s Separation Date. If the University and Employee
were to enter into mutually acceptable future employment arrangements, such terms of
employment shall not include tenure, tenure track, extended-term, or extended-term track
faculty status.

5. Release by Employee. Employee hereby releases, acquits, and forever discharges University
and all of its affiliates, officers, directors, shareholders, employees, agents, and insurers from
any and all liabilities, rights, claims, demands, damages, actions or causes of action, suits or
causes of suit, directly, indirectly or derivatively, to date which have been or could have been
asserted, arising out of, related to or any way connected to Employee's employment by
University and the termination of such employment, under any statutory, contract (other than
for breach of this Agreement), or common law theories, or under any applicable federal, state
or local laws, codes, regulations or other authority. The foregoing includes but is not limited to:
claims for wages, bonuses, incentive compensation, vacation pay or any other compensation or
benefits under federal or state law, any claim for reinstatement, re-employment, or for
additional compensation in any form, and any claim arising under: ORS Chapter 659A, Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act, as amended, 42 USC§ 2000e, et seq., The Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42
USC§ 1981, et seq., The Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 USC§ 12111, et seq., the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 USC§ 701, et seq., The Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 USC§ 201, et
seq., or The Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA''), as amended, 29 USC§ 621, et
seq.; any action for wages, vacation or sick leave, based on any Oregon statute or based on
contract, or any other federal, state or local laws and regulations relating to civil rights,
26
employment, discrimination, labor law or employee benefits; and any and all claims for
attorney fees and costs. This section is intended to be as broad as possible under applicable
law. This section is not intended to relinquish any rights or protections that cannot be waived or
relinquished under applicable law.

6. Anti-Disparagement Provision. The Employee agrees not to make any comments relating to
the University or its employees which are critical, derogatory, or which may tend to injure the
business of the University.

The University agrees not to make any formal communication relating to the Employee which
are critical, derogatory, or which may tend to injure the Employee. The University agrees that in
the event a potential employer contacts the University for a reference for Employee, the
University HR will provide information limited to dates of employment, job title and
responsibilities held. For purposes of this section the University formal communication shall be
those communications sanctioned and provided by University Advancement. The Employee
may utilize the letter of recommendation as he/she sees fit.

7. Covenant Not to Sue. To the fullest extent permitted by law, at no time subsequent to the
execution of this Agreement will either Employer or Employee pursue, or cause or knowingly
permit the prosecution, in any state, federal or foreign court, of any charge, claim of action of
any kind, nature and character whatsoever, known or unknown which Employer or Employee
may now have or have or had, or may in the future have against the other, which is based in
whole or in party on any matter released by this Agreement.

In addition, the University will not initiate a Title IX review of Employee’s conduct.

8. Right to Consult with Attorney. Employee represents that Employee has been advised to
consult with an attorney regarding this agreement and has the opportunity to do so. Employee
acknowledges that Employee is responsible for the payment of Employee's own attorneys' fees
with respect to the review and execution of this Agreement.

9. Confidentiality of this Agreement. Employee agrees to keep the existence, nature, terms and
conditions of this Agreement strictly confidential, and will release such information only
pursuant to subpoena or court order, or as necessary to his/her accountants and lawyers, and
that she/he shall advise any such individual listed above who received such information of the
confidentiality of this information. Employee may also inform his/her immediate family
provided that such individuals are advised that the information is confidential and that they
pledge to maintain such confidentiality.

Employee agrees that University may seek appropriate remedies, including remedies at law
and/or equity, for a breach of this confidentiality provision. If either party prevails in an action
for breach of this confidentiality provision, that party is entitled to its reasonable attorneys’
fees and costs.

10. Age Discrimination Release

27
(a) This Agreement is intended to satisfy the requirements of the Older Workers’ Benefit
Protection Act. Employee hereby acknowledges that she/he is waiving and releasing any rights
she/he has or may have under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA") and
that this waiver and release is knowing and voluntary. Employee and University agree that this
waiver and release does not apply to any rights or claims that may arise under ADEA after the
Effective Date of this Agreement. In addition, this Agreement does not prohibit Employee from
challenging the validity of this Agreement’s waiver and release of claims under ADEA. Employee
acknowledges that a portion of the consideration given for this waiver is in addition to anything
of value to which Employee was already entitled for salary and paid time off up to the
Separation Date. Employee verifies that in compliance with ADEA, University has notified
Employee of the following:

c (i) Employee should consult with his/her attorney; and,

c (ii) Employee has a period of 21 days to consider this Agreement before executing it
should she/he choose to avail himself of the 21 days. In the event there are any
revisions to the terms of this Agreement that are agreed upon by both the Employee
and University, the 21-day period will remain intact and does not restart; and

(iii) This Agreement shall not become effective and irrevocable unless Employee has not
revoked it within a period of seven (7) days after its execution.

(b) Employee may elect to sign and return this Agreement before 21 days have elapsed. If
she/he does so, she/he waives his/her right to the 21-day period to consider this Agreement.

11. Voluntary Agreement. By signing this Agreement, Employee acknowledges that Employee is
signing voluntarily after Employee has read all the contents of this Agreement. Employee
further acknowledges that Employee understands the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

12. Equitable Relief. Employee acknowledges that the remedies available at law for any breach
of this Agreement will, by their nature, be inadequate. Accordingly, University may obtain
injunctive relief or other equitable relief to restrain a breach or threatened breach of this
Agreement or to specifically enforce this Agreement, without proving that any monetary
damages have been sustained.

13. Mediation and Arbitration. The parties agree that should any issue arise regarding the
breach of this Agreement, or should any issue arise regarding the scope of claims released by
Employee, any dispute regarding such issue shall be submitted first to confidential mediation. In
the event that the mediation fails, the dispute shall be submitted to confidential binding
arbitration. The arbitration shall be conducted by AAA in Portland, Oregon and except as
otherwise agreed by the parties, subject to the arbitration rules of AAA. Nothing in this Section
12 will prohibit University from seeking equitable relief in accordance with Section 11 of this
Agreement.

14. Attorney Fees. If any arbitration or litigation is instituted to interpret, enforce, or rescind
this Agreement, including but not limited to any proceeding brought under the United States

28
Bankruptcy Code, the prevailing party on a claim will be entitled to recover with respect to the
claim, in addition to any other relief awarded, the prevailing party’s reasonable attorney’s fees
and other fees, costs, and expenses of every kind, incurred in connection with the arbitration,
the litigation, any appeal or petition for review, the collection of any award, or the enforcement
of any order, as determined by the arbitrator or court.

15. Complete Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire understanding of the parties and
supersedes all prior and contemporaneous negotiations and agreements, whether written or
oral, between the parties.

16. Severability of Terms. Except as provided in this Section, every provision contained in this
Agreement is intended to be severable. In the event a court or agency of competent jurisdiction
determines that any term or provision contained in this Agreement is illegal, invalid, or
unenforceable, such illegality, invalidity, or unenforceability shall not affect the other terms and
provision of this Agreement, and the remainder of this Agreement shall continue in full force
and effect.

17. Controlling Law. This Agreement shall be interpreted, construed, and enforced in
accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon.

18. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts or multiples, any one of
which shall have the force of an original. A fax transmission of a signature page will be
considered an original signature page. At the request of a party, the other party will confirm a
fax-transmitted signature page by delivering an original signature page to the requesting party.

IN WITNESS THEREOF, University and Employee have executed this Separation Agreement and
Release.

Pacific University:

Signature Date

Title

Date

29
 EXHIBIT C
Notice of Allegations

(Please be advised as you read this exhibit that Dr. Paxton strenuously denies that he said the
things being alleged. There is no context in these allegations, which is why we have
demanded the Zoom recordings for months: to examine what was actually said, and in what
context. They provided those classes to Lori Watson, the “independent investigator,” but
they will not provide them to us. It’s outrageous.)

Why am I Receiving this Notice?

Notice of Allegations

This notice is to inform you that a formal complaint of allegation has been filed with the
University that implicates the University's Sexual Misconduct Policy and Title IX Sexual
Misconduct Process. You have been named as either a Complainant (person alleged to be the
victim of conduct that could constitute sexual harassment) or a Respondent (person accused of
conduct that could constitute sexual harassment). Because the Title IX Sexual Misconduct
Process is applicable to some of the allegations of the formal complaint, the University will
address all accommpanying (sic) allegations implicating the Code of Conduct or other
student/employee policies according to the procedures outlined in the Title IX Sexual
Misconduct Process, unless the formal complaint is dismissed from the Title IX Sexual
Misconduct Process.

What are the Allegations of Misconduct?

Date(s) of Alleged Incident(s): During EDUC 361 classes, including but not limited to during
September 29, 2020, class; during EDUC 618/659 class, including but not limited to September
9, 16, 23, and 30, 2020, classes

Location(s) of Alleged Incident(s): During EDUC 361 and EDUC 618/659 classes Allegations:

Pacific student Kathleen Ward asserts that Dr. Richard Paxton made her and her classmates in
the EDUC 361 class uncomfortable by "constantly berating [them] with misogynistic language."
During class on September 29, 2020, Dr. Paxton is alleged to have told a story during which he
stated that "every person has a gender," which ignored the gender identify of agender and
nonbinary students in the class. Dr. Paxton told a story during the same class about transgender
individuals that he encountered in a bar and made negative and gender-stereotyping
comments about the individuals and experience. Dr. Paxton is alleged to have expressed to the
class that he knows that the comments like the ones described are offensive but continues to
engage in the conduct. Ms. Ward also expressed that Dr. Paxton has treated her dismissively or
with harsh criticism and tone of voice when she asked questions or made statements in class.

30
Pacific graduate students Becca Burney, Rachel Cohen, Allie Collins, Robert Till, and Magen
Stempin assert that Dr. Paxton engaged in negative and stereotypical comments during the
EDUC 618/659 class, including as follows:

● Offensive comments regarding Jewish people, including on September 9, Dr. Paxton

made an statement that "the Jews funded the Revolutionary War...sure, some of them
fought, but nobody really cares because people only care when Jewish people have
money";
● On September 16, making statements that he does not want to hold class on Election
Night because he thought it was “weird” that “women teachers” were crying in the
aftermath of the 2016 Election, and several times throughout the class, referring to
former graduate students as “slaves";
● On September 23, comments during class discussion related to a story he told about a
secretary, that "young women today [not] using purses like they used to," about the
majors available to women in college during the 1970s, while reading from a book
entitled, The Language Police by Diane Revitch, and regarding religion while
commenting on John Brown, the abolotionist. (sic)
● On September 30, making statements regarding the Klu Klux Klan's activity in Oregon,
racism and its connection to a "liberal" political figure, and in references to Native
Americans as "warlike" and "aggressive;"
● Throughout the course, engaging in discussion of historical figure Christopher Columbus
in a manner referencing the "'big Italian lobby' on the East Coast as the reason why
statues of Columbus are hard to remove," and asserting that "'Italians worship'
Columbus."

● How Will the University Address the Allegations?

The University will use the procedures outlined in its Sexual Misconduct Policy, which
can be found athttps://www.pacificu.edu/node/18293. The Sexual Misconduct Policy
includes steps that the University will follow when responding to a report of sexual
misconduct. This Policy provides for three processes: the Title IX Sexual Misconduct
Process (applicable to both students and employees), the Non-Title IX Student Sexual
Misconduct Process, and the process for non-Title IX complaints of sex misconduct
against employees. The University's assessment may require it switch between these
processes at various points. When the reported conduct falls under the Sexual
Misconduct Policy but is either not within the jurisdiction of Title IX or is dismissed on a
permissive basis from the Title IX Sex Misconduct Process, the University will (1)
evaluate complaints against students under the Non-Title IX Student Sexual Misconduct
Process, and (2) evaluate complaints against employees pursuant to the University's
Human Resources policies, as well as the Faculty and Governance Handbook and Staff
Handbook. The Title IX Coordinator, or designee, will determine whether the Sexual
Misconduct Policy is applicable to conduct occurring off-campus or out-of-term, on a
case-by-case basis.
This notice is required under the Title IX Sexual Misconduct Process, and if you are
receiving this notice, then the University has made an initial determination that the Title

31
 IX Sexual Misconduct Process applies. As stated above, as additional evidence is
gathered and as the University continues to assess the situation, it may be required to
switch between the Title IX Process and another process.
What Are My Rights and Responsibilities?
● You are entitled to have an Advisor of your choice, who may be, but is not required to
be, an attorney. This person will participate in the Title IX Sexual Misconduct Process as
explained in that Process, and will be required to follow rules of decorum.
● You may also have a Support Person of your choice, who will be allowed to participate in
the Title IX Sexual Misconduct Process as explained in that Process, and will be required
to follow rules of decorum.
● You will be provided an opportunity to inspect, review, and respond to evidence as
described in the Title IX Sexual Misconduct Process.
● Under the Title IX Sexual Misconduct Process, the Respondent is presumed not
responsible for the alleged conduct and a determination regarding the Respondent's
responsibility will be made at the conclusion of the grievance process.
● It is an important responsibility as a member of the Pacific University community to
cooperate by participating in the sexual misconduct complaint process and providing
honest, unembellished information to the best of your ability. Participants in the Title IX
Sexual Misconduct Process must, present, in good faith, truthful and accurate
information. Knowingly making false statements or presenting inaccurate information is
unacceptable and will result in a separate disciplinary action regarding that conduct.
Please note that filing a complaint or providing information which a party or witness
genuinely believes is accurate, but which is ultimately dismissed due to insufficient
evidence or found to be untrue, does NOT constitute the intentional presentation of
false information.
● Any party can refuse to participate in the investigation. Note that an investigation may
still move forward even without cooperation from all parties.

• If additional allegations arise during the Title IX Sexual Misconduct Process that may
constitute sexual harassment, you will receive an updated notice of the allegations.

What Happens Next?

The University has scheduled an Informational Meeting to give you additional information and
answer any questions you may have about the Title IX Sexual Misconduct Process. If you have
questions about the Informational Meeting, please contact Lindsey Blem by email at
lindseyb@pacificu.edu.

Time and Date: December 16, 2020 at 3pm Location: https://pacificu.zoom.us/j/92781247007

Participants: You, your Advisor, if any, and your Support Person, if any, and Lindsey Blem the
Title IX Coordinator or designee. The University retains discretion to have its attorney present at
any meeting, in particular if you choose to have an attorney as your Advisor.

32
Please notify Lindsey Blem, as soon as you know whether you will be bringing an Advisor or
Support Person to the initial meeting and identify whom that individual will be.

33
 EXHIBIT D
Pacific University Handbook

(This file is too large to attach here, it will be a separate email when I send this letter)

34
 EXHIBIT E
Pacific’s Title IX Sex Misconduct Policy

(This file is too large to attach here, it will be a separate email when I send this letter)

35