By Roger DuPuis | WVIA News
Published August 21, 2024
Former Bloomsburg University dean Jeffrey Krug has won a $3.9 million federal jury verdict over claims he faced retaliation and was fired for helping an administrative assistant file a sexual harassment report against the school’s president.
Krug, former dean of the Zeigler College of Business and a tenured faculty member, was improperly terminated in 2018, according to his suit.
Krug sued Bloomsburg University — now part of Commonwealth University of Pennsylvania — school president Bashar Hanna, university senior vice president for academic affairs James Krause, and the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education.
Krug claimed he was subjected to false rumors of infidelity, a retaliatory investigation, denials of business travel and expense reimbursement and, ultimately, termination.
Wilkes-Barre attorney Barry Dyller said Krug, his client, feels he acted “legally and morally” correctly by helping the employee.
“It really was traumatic, and he is so relieved,” Dyller said. “His reputation matters to him. They went to great lengths to destroy that reputation … So he feels vindicated.”
The verdict was handed down Tuesday following a trial before U.S. District Judge Jennifer Wilson in Harrisburg.
“We are disappointed with the decision and are reviewing options with legal counsel with every intent to appeal,” the university said in a statement.
“Commonwealth University is and remains a welcoming and inclusive environment for all students, faculty, and staff,” the statement added.
Bloomsburg, Lock Haven and Mansfield universities merged on July 1, 2022 to become Commonwealth University of Pennsylvania, with Hanna as its president.
Harassment allegations
Hanna became Bloomsburg’s president on July 1, 2017. According to the suit, he was hired despite a history of “confrontational” behavior in previous jobs — particularly toward women — at Delaware Valley, Temple and Kutztown universities.
In November 2017, the suit claims, Hanna’s administrative assistant confided in Krug’s administrative assistant that she rebuffed Hanna’s harassment and physical advances and feared for her job. The suit does not identify the women.
The women took their concerns to Krug, the suit states. They told him that after Hanna’s assistant rejected her boss’ advances, Hanna “immediately retaliated against her, including open hostility toward her, blocking her access to his email and speaking in a derogatory and demeaning manner toward her.”
“Because he had not previously dealt with any sexual harassment issue, Dr. Krug spoke, in general terms, to his father, and to his sister, who is chief of staff to the president of another university and has significant knowledge of and experience with sexual harassment matters,” the suit states.
After having the conversations and reading of the university’s sexual harassment policy, Krug believed the policy and federal law required him to report the harassment to Robert Wislock, the school’s Title IX coordinator.
Title IX is a 1972 law that “protects people from discrimination based on sex in education programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance.”
On Nov. 13, 2017, Krug and his assistant accompanied Hanna’s assistant to Wislock’s office and told him what happened.
Instead of preparing a written report as required, Wislock suggested the woman imagined Hanna’s advances, the suit states.
During a second, solo meeting two days later, Wislock laughed at her fears of termination, the suit claims.
Retaliation alleged
Krug claimed retaliation began the same week.
He and his staff members described having their drawers rummaged through and computers tampered with, the suit states. Krug’s administrative assistant “watched her emails changing from ‘unread’ to ‘read’ right before her eyes.”
Krug claims Krause directly targeted him. That included rejecting business travel and expense reimbursement, which harmed his effectiveness and caused him and his family financial hardship.
In January 2018, the suit states, Krug and his administrative assistant learned employees of Hanna and Krause were spreading false rumors that Krug and his assistant were engaged in a sexual relationship.
“A staff member who Krause had installed in the office next to Dr. Krug also joked that staff had made comments that Dr. Krug was also involved in a sexual relationship with her,” the suit states.
On Jan. 5, 2018, Krug and his assistant went to Wislock to file their own complaints.
Instead of offering to file a complaint as requested, Wislock “interrogated Dr. Krug about his relationships with people across campus,” the suit states.
On Jan. 11, 2018, Krug learned the state system was investigating him for alleged “disclosure of personnel matters not of public concern” regarding the sexual harassment investigations, a claim the suit denies.
The suit alleges Krause threatened to fire Krug unless he submitted to an interview with Ballard Spahr, the state system’s law firm. During the interview, the firm never provided Krug with copies of “whatever law or policies he was suspected of violating.”
That ultimately led to a Feb. 21, 2018 report that Krug breached confidentiality protections and was subject to discipline.
Among the confidentiality violations: Krug discussed the sexual harassment allegations with his father.
The suit points out Krug did not provide any person with any “records, files, documents or other materials” concerning the case, which would have been a violation.
While Hanna’s assistant was a part-time student, she approached Krug in her role as a university employee, the suit states, and the privacy laws cited cover students, not employees.
Once the report was issued, Krug objected to Krause deciding his fate because Krause was not only a witness in the investigation but the subject of Krug’s own pending Title IX complaint.
The state system responded by email that “no conflict of interest has been identified,” the suit states.
Krug was terminated the next day, March 21, 2018. He filed suit that August.
Court proceedings
The state Attorney General’s Office represented the university and the other defendants. The office countered in legal filings that Krug was fired for failing to follow “university policies and applicable law and not as a pretext for engaging in protected activity.”
Dyller countered that evidence showed Krug’s fate was determined even before the hearing.
“We really had a fight for discovery,” he said of obtaining relevant documents through the legal process leading to trial.
The documents included a termination letter drafted before the hearing, “which is supposed to be fair, to be unbiased and not pre-decided,” Dyller said. “That letter said the day he would be fired. It said who was going to replace him.”
The federal jury in Harrisburg sided unambiguously with Krug.
Jurors found Bloomsburg University, the state system, Hanna and Krause all guilty of retaliating against Krug in violation of Title IX, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act and the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law.
With attorneys’ fees and interest, the final verdict could reach $5 million, Dyller said.