Report of Independent Investigation:

Allegations of Sexual Misconduct by Martin A. Philbert

July 31, 2020

 Table of Contents

Page

I. Executive Summary ...........................................................................................................1

II. Independent Investigation ...............................................................................................10
A. Engagement and Independence..............................................................................10
B. Investigation Methodology ....................................................................................10
III. Facts ..................................................................................................................................16
A. 1995 to 2004: Professor in the School of Public Health .......................................16
B. 2004 to 2010: Senior Associate Dean in the School of Public Health..................19
C. 2010: Selection as Dean of the School of Public Health ......................................25
D. 2011 to 2017: Dean of the School of Public Health .............................................36
E. 2017: Selection as Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs.43
F. Sept. 2017 to Mar. 2020: Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic
Affairs ....................................................................................................................47
IV. Analysis .............................................................................................................................56
A. Analysis: Philbert’s Conduct .................................................................................56
B. Analysis: University’s Knowledge and Response ..................................................58
C. Analysis: Summation .............................................................................................75
V. Recommendations ............................................................................................................77
A. Ensuring that Information Reaches OIE and Appropriate University Officials ....77
B. Ensuring that Findings are Based on Full Investigations.......................................85
C. Ensuring that Hiring Decisions are Informed by Past Findings of Policy
Violations ...............................................................................................................86

Appendix 1 – University Announcement ..................................................................................... i

Appendix 2 – Witness Glossary .................................................................................................. iii

i
I. Executive Summary

In 1995, Martin Philbert joined the University of Michigan School of Public Health
(“SPH”) as an assistant professor of toxicology. For the next twenty-five years, he rose to
positions of greater authority and influence. In 2004, he became a full professor and the SPH
Associate Dean for Research; in 2010, he was selected as Dean of SPH; and, in 2017, he became
the University’s Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs. The Provost
occupies the University’s second highest-ranking position and has primary responsibility for
academic and budgetary affairs. Over the course of his employment by the University—while he
was an assistant professor, an associate dean, Dean of SPH, and Provost—Philbert sexually
harassed multiple members of the University community, including both graduate students who
worked in his research lab and University employees. Some allegations and other information
about Philbert’s conduct reached University officials; others never came to their attention.

In his early years at the University, including while he served as an associate dean,
Philbert harassed women (including graduate students) who worked in his research lab in SPH.
He made comments about women’s bodies; redirected conversations with women to the topic of
sex; and insisted on getting hugs. Before some women began working for Philbert, they were
warned of his reputation for such conduct and not to be alone with him.

In 2003, a male lab employee told University officials that Philbert was terminating him,
rather than a female lab employee, because of Philbert’s close personal relationship with that
employee. The male lab employee also provided other information about Philbert—specifically,
that Philbert had shown up uninvited at the home of a graduate student, and that he had
“boundary issues.” A senior SPH faculty member questioned Philbert about the alleged
relationship with the female lab employee. The faculty member did not find any indication that
Philbert had an improper relationship with the female lab employee, and subsequent litigation
brought by the male employee in 2004 did not uncover any such evidence. It does not appear
that the University questioned Philbert about his conduct toward any other woman. The male
employee’s lawsuit ultimately settled.

In 2005, after Philbert had become Associate Dean for Research at SPH, specific
allegations arose that he had engaged in sexual harassment. Two women who worked in
Philbert’s lab—a graduate student and a research assistant who had recently graduated from
SPH—told an SPH professor that Philbert had kissed their necks. The graduate student called
Philbert a “bad man” who did “bad things.” The research assistant said that Philbert had
propositioned her for sex, asked her to marry him, to run away together, and to “have caramel
colored babies” with him, and that he had talked to her about “chocolate syrup sex.” The
professor alerted multiple University officials, including SPH Dean Ken Warner; Vice Provost
for Academic and Faculty Affairs Lori Pierce; and Anthony Walesby, Director of the Office of
Institutional Equity (“OIE”), which was responsible for investigating sexual harassment
complaints against faculty.

Walesby made several attempts to speak with the women. Both women declined to speak
with him or to report Philbert; they were concerned about retaliation. Walesby also spoke with
another graduate student and a male SPH professor, both of whom suggested that Philbert had a
bad reputation with women. The graduate student also told Walesby that she had heard of

1
Philbert propositioning another student for sex. In light of the unwillingness of the two women
to speak with Walesby, OIE did not open an investigation. Warner, the SPH Dean—who
assumed the conduct had happened as alleged—later “read [Philbert] the riot act” and counseled
him.

In October 2010, when Philbert was a finalist for SPH Dean, both University Provost
Philip Hanlon—who had ultimate responsibility for recommending a final candidate for Dean—
and Paula Lantz, the Chair of the Dean’s Search Committee, learned of the 2005 allegations
against Philbert. Lantz spoke with Dean Warner; she recalls him saying that the allegations had
been investigated and that the “investigation” had not substantiated any wrongdoing. Lantz, not
wanting to prejudice Philbert based on what she understood to be unsubstantiated allegations, did
not raise the specific allegations with the full Committee. But the Committee had other
concerning information about Philbert’s conduct. A graduate student representative on the
Committee stated that, in 2006 or 2007, Philbert had made a crude joke in class—that women
have high rates of urinary tract infections because “the playground and the trash heap are too
close together.” The Committee also noted, in a summary document it prepared regarding the
candidates, that Philbert had made women uncomfortable through behavior that was perceived to
be overly flirtatious and inappropriate. And the Committee had access to survey feedback on
Philbert after he had participated in a campus visit; one response detailed Philbert’s
“inappropriate comments and behaviors with respect to female students, staff, and faculty” and
the anonymous author’s own experience being “subject to [Philbert’s] inappropriate and
unwanted sexual comments and suggestions.”

Hanlon took steps to learn additional information about Philbert’s conduct, including
about the 2005 allegations. He received a summary prepared by Walesby detailing the
allegations, and he later met with Walesby to discuss them. He alerted University President
Mary Sue Coleman about the 2005 allegations and reached out to multiple SPH faculty members
to conduct reference checks on Philbert. A member of his staff collected enrollment and contact
information for the students and witnesses involved in the 2005 allegations. He also asked Vice
Provost Lori Pierce—who had been aware of the allegations in 2005—to speak with women in
SPH about Philbert. Pierce informed Hanlon that, apart from her conversation with the SPH
professor who had reported the allegations to OIE in 2005, she learned nothing negative about
Philbert. A few days later Hanlon recommended Philbert as the next Dean of SPH, effective
January 1, 2011.

Philbert served as Dean of SPH for the next six and a half years. He was generally
viewed as successful and was renewed for a second term in 2015 by then-Provost Martha
Pollack. But he sexually harassed several women, this time with a focus on the Dean’s office,
including junior members of his staff. He continued making sexual comments around staff and
insisting on hugs. And he went further with some women—making targeted sexual comments
and comments about their appearances.

Philbert re-directed his attention away from some women to others on his own accord, or
because the women took steps to evade him. For some, his advances led to relationships. While
Dean, Philbert was in sexual relationships with at least three staff members at SPH. These
relationships overlapped—and included sexual relations in University offices and explicit photos
that Philbert stored on his University-owned devices. One of the women was in a relationship

2
with Philbert for roughly a year and a half. In the course of the relationship, she received a
promotion. When the relationship had ended, she felt that Philbert made her work environment
more difficult.

In 2013, the allegations from 2005 surfaced for a third time. In the fall of 2012, while
Philbert was serving as Dean, the research assistant who in 2005 told the SPH professor that
Philbert had kissed her neck and propositioned her for sex reenrolled as a student at SPH. Afraid
that she would run into Philbert, she decided by the spring of 2013 to withdraw from her classes.
She submitted petitions for a tuition refund and removal of the “withdrawal” notation from her
transcript, explaining that she had previously been subjected to sexual harassment by Philbert
that was causing her to experience “anxiety, fear, and panic attacks.” The University ultimately
granted her petitions.

OIE Director Walesby met with the student while she was preparing her petitions. As in
2005, the student declined to provide additional details or report Philbert, and, as in 2005, OIE
did not investigate her allegations. But Walesby did inform other University officials, including
Provost Hanlon and incoming Provost Pollack, of the student’s tuition refund and transcript
amendment petitions. He also informed Vice Provost Pierce—who had learned of the allegations
in 2005, and who in 2010 had, at Hanlon’s request, reached out to women in SPH to learn more
about Philbert’s conduct.

Four years later, in 2017, Pierce, along with ten other individuals from across the
University, was a member of the Provost Search Committee, chaired by current University
President Mark Schlissel. The Committee was tasked with selecting a slate of finalists from
which President Schlissel could recommend the University’s next Provost. Philbert was the
favorite among the internal candidates—described by some on the Committee as the “choice of
the deans.” At no point during the Provost search process did the Committee as a whole, or
President Schlissel individually, learn any information about Philbert’s problematic conduct
toward women. Pierce, in 2005, had learned of the allegations against Philbert when she met
with the SPH professor to whom the allegations were raised and directed her to report the
information to OIE; she called women in SPH about Philbert’s conduct when the allegations
resurfaced during the 2010 Dean’s search; and she received information that the allegations were
at issue in a student’s petition for a tuition reimbursement in 2013. Pierce did not raise the
allegations with the Committee or with President Schlissel. 1 The Committee did not seek
information about past allegations and Pierce “did not think about it,” in part because, to her
recollection, there had been no evidence to support the allegations. President Schlissel
ultimately recommended Philbert to the Board of Regents. On June 15, 2017, the Board of
Regents approved, and Philbert was named the University’s next Provost, effective September 1,
2017.

After Philbert’s selection but before the beginning of his term, President Schlissel learned
from a member of the Board of Regents that Philbert may have been involved in a lawsuit
involving allegations of sexual misconduct. President Schlissel immediately requested more
information from the University’s Office of the Vice President and General Counsel (“OGC”).

1
We received a second-hand report that another member of the Committee had heard “rumors” about
Philbert’s conduct. We were unable to identify that person or the content of the “rumors.”
3
OGC gathered information about the case—that is, the 2004 employment litigation described
above. President Schlissel learned that the facts, which came in large part from sworn deposition
testimony, did not show that Philbert and the female lab employee had an improper relationship.
President Schlissel found no reason to reverse Philbert’s appointment.

Philbert’s misconduct continued as Provost. He directed his behavior toward women

who worked in both the SPH Dean’s Office and in the Provost’s Office, including one woman he
encouraged to move from the Dean’s Office to the Provost’s Office. Among other sexual
comments, he told three different women that he wanted to see below their tan lines; told one
woman that he was “aching” for her, and that they could have “beautiful coffee-colored babies”
together; and told another woman that “if I wasn’t married, I would really go after you.” Philbert
was persistent at times, texting at least one woman frequently, inviting her to travel with him,
and arriving at work early apparently because she did.

Philbert also continued to engage in multiple sexual relationships with University

employees. For nearly his entire tenure as Provost, he was in simultaneous sexual relationships
with at least two University employees, sometimes more. He pressed some of these women to
send him explicit photos, which he stored on his University-owned devices. And he engaged in
sexual contact with them in University offices, including with one woman on a near-daily basis
for a time. These relationships took a toll on the environment in the Provost’s office and created
uncomfortable dynamics among some staff.

While Philbert was Provost, the President’s Office received information about his
conduct on three occasions. First, in the fall of 2017, shortly after Philbert became Provost, an
SPH employee met with Liz Barry, the Special Counsel to the President, to discuss a position
that she was considering in the Provost’s Office. The SPH employee recalled expressing some
hesitation about working for Philbert and “insinuate[ing] something around Me Too.” Barry
recalled that the SPH employee referred to Philbert’s “issues with women” and stated that part of
her job would be to “coach” him on interactions with women. Barry understood the issue to be
Philbert’s management style, particularly because she did not associate the term “coaching” with
addressing sexual misconduct and more generally because of her colleague’s apparent
enthusiasm about working in the Provost’s Office. Barry did not discuss what she had heard
from the SPH employee with anyone else in the President’s Office.

Second, in April 2019, President Schlissel received the results of a survey through which
University faculty submit anonymous feedback to high-level University leaders regarding their
performance. President Schlissel’s survey, which included 161 comments totaling 27 pages,
included a comment stating, in part, “Re: your administrative appointments: Martin Philbert
was/is a notorious sexual predator, physically cornering and emotionally coercing his female
graduate students in his toxicology lab.” President Schlissel did not recall having reviewed the
comment, and there is no indication that he (or anyone else at the University) did.

Third, on January 16, 2020, President Schlissel received an anonymous letter, in which
the author stated: “I am writing on behalf of a group of women who have recently connected . . .
to corroborate and share our stories of emotional and sexual abuse perpetrated on us within your
University by your provost Martin Philbert over the past twenty years.” On January 16 and 17,

4
several women came forward to University officials to detail their allegations of sexual
harassment against Philbert.

***

On January 18, 2020, the University retained WilmerHale to conduct an independent

investigation into these allegations. Philbert was directed not to report to work and was placed
on administrative leave without pay on January 21, 2020, pending the results of our
investigation. Our investigation presented two questions: (1) whether Philbert engaged in
conduct that violated University policies in effect at the time of such conduct; and (2) what
information of Philbert’s conduct was known to the University during his tenure and whether the
University took or failed to take action in response to that information.

Over the past six months, we have conducted an exhaustive investigation of Philbert’s
conduct, what information about his conduct reached the University, and what actions the
University took in response to that information. In total, we collected over 6 million documents
and reviewed relevant emails, handwritten notes, materials associated with the Dean and Provost
search processes, and other University records. We also reviewed the contents of Philbert’s
University-owned devices, which contained thousands of text messages and hundreds of
thousands of photos. And we interviewed 128 individuals, some multiple times. Philbert did not
participate in our investigation; he declined to be interviewed, and he declined our request to
identify witnesses with relevant information or provide relevant evidence.

Throughout our investigation, the University placed no restrictions on our fact-gathering,

our analysis, or our independence. We had sole discretion to employ investigative resources,
techniques, and processes appropriate to complete the investigation and this Report. The facts,
findings, and recommendations set out in this Report are our own and are based on our
evaluation of the evidence we have collected and reviewed.

Philbert’s Conduct

As to the first question, we found significant evidence that Philbert engaged in conduct
that violated the University’s Sexual Harassment policy, Standard Practice Guide (“SPG”)
201.89-0, which prohibits sexual harassment by employees, as well as other University policies.

The University’s Response

As to the second question, we identified numerous times when University personnel

received information about Philbert’s sexually harassing conduct. We analyze each of them in
order:

2003. In 2003, a male employee in Philbert’s lab alleged that Philbert was in a close
personal relationship with a female lab employee. The University’s initial investigation of the
allegation was superficial—one meeting between an SPH professor and Philbert—but the
ensuing litigation examined the issue and did not bring to light any evidence of an improper
relationship. We did not identify additional steps that the University should have taken to
investigate the alleged relationship. The same male lab employee also provided limited
information about Philbert giving potentially unwanted attention to a graduate student working in

5
his lab; we do not believe that information triggered an obligation for the University to
investigate further.

2005. In 2005, an SPH professor received two first-hand accounts of sexual misconduct
by Philbert from a female graduate student and a female research assistant. Each woman
separately reported to the professor that Philbert had kissed her without her consent; one of the
women reported that he had propositioned her for sex. The professor reported the information to
several University officials, including OIE Director Walesby. Two other individuals made
statements to Walesby suggesting there was an issue with Philbert’s conduct toward women.
The University decided not to investigate after the two women declined to speak with Walesby
and declined to file reports.

We conclude that the University should have taken further steps to investigate Philbert in
2005. The women were entitled to decline to participate in an investigation, but the University
was still obligated to take all reasonable steps to investigate sexual harassment reports in order to
provide a nondiscriminatory environment. OIE had reasonable avenues of investigation
available; for example, it could have attempted to interview other employees and students in
Philbert’s lab. There is no way to know what information such interviews would have yielded.
But OIE’s decision not to conduct an investigation meant that the University was not in a
position to obtain potentially relevant information about Philbert’s interactions with female
students and staff.

2010. In 2010 Philbert was a candidate for Dean of SPH. Both the Chair of the Search
Committee, Paula Lantz, and then-Provost Hanlon learned of the 2005 allegations against
Philbert. Lantz informed the Provost’s office of the information. Lantz also met with then-SPH
Dean Warner, who she recalls saying that an investigation in 2005 had not substantiated the
allegations against Philbert. Lantz wrote in a contemporaneous email that she did not want to
inform the Committee about the 2005 allegations “as a specific instance because the
investigation revealed no wrongdoing.”

Hanlon had more information about the 2005 allegations than Lantz. He met with OIE
Director Walesby and received an email summary Walesby prepared about the allegations. A
staff member in the Provost’s office also gathered information about the students and witnesses
involved in the 2005 allegations. Hanlon later informed University President Mary Sue Coleman
about the allegations.

Lantz, members of the Search Committee, and Hanlon also had other information
regarding Philbert’s conduct toward women, including access to a confidential survey in which
one anonymous participant stated, “I was subject to inappropriate and unwanted sexual
comments and suggestions.”

Based on the above, we reach the following conclusions:

Committee Chair. Given the information before her and the Committee, and that she had
conveyed the information about the 2005 allegations to the Provost’s office, we believe Lantz
exercised reasonable judgment in choosing not to raise those specific allegations with the full
Committee. We do, however, believe that Lantz (or anyone else on the Committee) should have

6
forwarded the confidential survey results—specifically, the comment regarding Philbert’s
“inappropriate and unwanted sexual comments and suggestions”—to OIE.

Provost Hanlon. In addition to the 2005 allegations, Hanlon received the Committee’s
confidential summary about Philbert’s conduct, and he had access to the anonymous survey
comment about Philbert’s “unwanted sexual comments and suggestions.” Hanlon did not
dismiss the information he received about Philbert’s alleged misconduct. He took multiple steps
to learn more, including meeting with Walesby about the 2005 allegations. He also made
reference calls to SPH faculty and asked about Philbert’s conduct, and asked Vice Provost Pierce
to speak with women in SPH about Philbert. These steps suggest that he may have had lingering
concerns about Philbert’s conduct toward women. But, to the extent Hanlon believed that a
closer look at allegations against Philbert was warranted—particularly in order for him to reach a
judgment as to whether Philbert was fit to serve as Dean of SPH—he should have turned to
trained investigators in OIE to pursue that inquiry.

President Coleman. Coleman does not recall the email from Hanlon about the 2005
allegations or being otherwise aware of any allegations regarding Philbert’s conduct toward
women. She acknowledged that she may not have weighed or viewed this information in 2010
in the same way that she would today. We believe that Coleman should have asked questions to
understand fully the allegations about Philbert’s conduct. Absent a complete record of her
conversations with Hanlon or others, we are unable to reach conclusions about whether she did
so.

2013. In the fall of 2012, the research assistant who in 2005 had told an SPH professor
about Philbert’s conduct reenrolled as a graduate student. In the spring of 2013, she filed
petitions requesting a tuition refund and transcript amendment when she withdrew from SPH
based on emotional distress she was experiencing related to Philbert’s alleged sexual misconduct
in 2005. Walesby alerted multiple University officials, including Provost Hanlon, Vice Provost
Pollack, and Vice Provost Pierce. Walesby met with the former research assistant, but, as in
2005, she declined to provide additional information.

The former research assistant’s petitions were the third time in eight years that the 2005
allegations came to the attention of senior University administrators. Since the former research
assistant provided no new information and the senior administrators who were briefed on the
petition believed, albeit mistakenly, that her allegations had been fully investigated by OIE in
2005, it is understandable that none of them thought to ask OIE to investigate the allegations in
2013.

2017. In 2017, President Schlissel recommended and the Board of Regents approved
Philbert as University Provost.

President Schlissel. We found no evidence that information about Philbert’s alleged

misconduct reached President Schlissel in advance of Philbert’s selection. During the summer of
2017—after Philbert had been selected as Provost but before he had taken office —President
Schlissel learned of the 2004 employment lawsuit. With the assistance of OGC, President
Schlissel gathered information about the lawsuit and found no reason to reverse Philbert’s

7
appointment. We did not identify any further steps that should have been taken in response to
the information President Schlissel learned.

Provost’s Committee. We similarly found no evidence that information about Philbert’s

alleged misconduct reached the Provost’s Committee during its deliberations. Vice Provost
Pierce was a member of the Provost’s Search Committee. She told us that she did not recall
being asked, as a member of the Committee, whether she was aware of any allegations of
misconduct against Philbert, and she simply “did not think about it.” She also explained that, to
her recollection, there had been no evidence to support the allegations.

We recognize that, as a general matter, prior unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct

should not be considered in the University’s selection processes. However, in light of the nature
of the allegations against Philbert (e.g., unwanted kissing and a proposition for sex), we believe
that had Pierce recalled those allegations, it would have been appropriate for her to raise them
with the Committee or with President Schlissel for their consideration.

Other Information Received by the President’s Office

The President’s Office received two additional pieces of information regarding Philbert’s
conduct.

Information Received by Liz Barry. In the fall of 2017, a SPH employee met with Liz
Barry, the Special Counsel to President Schlissel, to discuss a potential job with Philbert. We do
not find that Barry received a report of sexual misconduct, or that there were any further steps
that she should reasonably have been expected to take.

President Schlissel’s 2019 Survey. One comment on the survey received by President
Schlissel included allegations that Philbert was a “sexual predator.” President Schlissel does not
recall reading the comment, and there is no evidence that he did. President Schlissel
acknowledged that had he reviewed the comment, he would have routed it to OIE. We believe
that would have been the correct course of action.

***

The Report concludes with recommendations for actions to ensure the University has
access to reliable information regarding sexual misconduct and other inappropriate behavior, and
that such information is systematically considered when important decisions are made. Our
recommendations fall into three categories:

First, much of Philbert’s conduct, as well as his many sexual relationships, never came to
the attention of University officials. We thus make recommendations that are intended to ensure
that the University receives the information it needs to identify and respond to sexual misconduct
and other prohibited behavior. Specifically, we recommend that:

 The University establish a standalone policy regarding consensual relationships

between employees that requires notice and recusal and/or mitigation of possible
conflicts of interest;

8
  The University ensure that students and employees are aware of the avenues for
reporting sexual misconduct;

 The University enhance the visibility and training of University personnel who are
required to report information about sexual harassment that is reported to them or that
otherwise comes to their attention;

 The University provide alternative oversight of sexual misconduct allegations

involving members of the Provost’s office, which is ordinarily responsible for
overseeing OIE; and

 The University conduct a climate survey regarding sexual misconduct for faculty and
staff.

Second, a central issue in our investigation was the University’s decision in 2005 not to
investigate two women’s allegations of misconduct after the women declined to file complaints
or provide information to OIE about their allegations. We believe additional investigative
avenues were available to OIE and should have been pursued. We thus recommend that:

 The University evaluate OIE investigative practices to ensure that OIE is identifying
and, as appropriate, pursuing additional investigative avenues when complainants
decline to participate in an investigation; and

 The University establish a process for formally reviewing OIE investigative files to
provide quality assurance and confidence in investigation procedures and outcomes.

Third, our investigation revealed opportunities to improve the University’s vetting

procedures in significant hiring decisions—specifically with respect to decisionmakers’
consideration of substantiated findings of sexual misconduct. We recommend that:

 The University ensure that findings of policy violations and other misconduct by
internal candidates are collected and accessible, and establish a formal written process
for obtaining and considering such findings in promotion, tenure, appointment,
reappointment, and other hiring decisions involving internal candidates; and

 The University review its procedures for vetting external candidates for faculty and
staff positions, and consider implementing a pilot program that enhances its ability to
identify findings by previous employers of sexual or other misconduct.

9
II. Independent Investigation

A. Engagement and Independence

On January 18, 2020, the University retained WilmerHale to conduct an independent

investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct by Martin A. Philbert, its Provost and
Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs. We were also asked to identify areas for
modification or enhancement of University policies, procedures, and practices, particularly with
respect to whether any gaps in those policies, procedures, and practices could have prevented or
detected Philbert’s alleged misconduct.

As set forth in our engagement letter, our investigation was independent from the
University. The University did not conduct, direct, or otherwise manage or influence our
investigation in any manner. The University did not impose any limits on our access to
information, nor did it require or prohibit any specific investigative steps. We had sole
discretion to employ investigative resources, techniques, and processes appropriate to complete
the investigation and this Report. The University did not impose a deadline for the completion
of the investigation or the issuance of this Report. On the contrary, the University encouraged us
to take the time we needed to conduct a comprehensive and thorough investigation and prepare
this Report.2

The facts, findings, and recommendations set out in this Report are our own and are
based on our evaluation of the evidence we have collected and reviewed. No changes or edits
were made to this Report by anyone outside of the WilmerHale investigative team at any time,
and no draft or advance copy of the Report was shown to or reviewed by anyone at the
University, including any member of the Board of Regents (“the Board”).

We received full cooperation from the Board and from the Office of the President, the
Office of the Vice President and General Counsel (“OGC”), and the Office of Institutional
Equity (“OIE”). The University provided us with full and timely access to all available relevant
documents and witnesses within its control.

The engagement did not involve any undertaking to represent the University or its
interests in any other matter. WilmerHale did not (and will not) represent the Board, the
University, or any University employees in any matters involving the defense of any potential
claims that are related to the allegations about Philbert.

B. Investigation Methodology

We conducted extensive document and data review, and a significant number of witness
interviews. Each informed the other—that is, we used our document review to identify witnesses

2
The University Board of Regents was our principal point of contact. Over the course of our
investigation, we updated the Board twice a month on process issues, including the number of interviews
we had completed and the number of documents we had collected and reviewed.

10
and inform our interviews, and we learned of additional documents to collect and review based
on the interviews we conducted.

1. Interviews

We interviewed 128 people—some multiple times—including current and former

employees, former students, and current and former senior University officials. No current or
former senior University official declined to be interviewed.

The University announced our investigation on January 22, 2020, along with several
avenues for submitting information to our team. 3 If we received information that an individual
may have been subjected to or aware of misconduct by Philbert, we contacted that person.

Further, to identify other individuals who may have experienced or had knowledge of
potential misconduct by Philbert, we contacted broad categories of individuals with whom
Philbert is likely to have interacted during his employment by the University. As part of this
outreach, we attempted to contact every person who worked in Philbert’s lab in the University’s
School of Public Health (“SPH”); every student for whom Philbert served as an assigned mentor
on a training grant; every employee in the SPH Dean’s office during the period in which Philbert
was Associate Dean of Research and then Dean; and every employee in the Office of the Provost
during Philbert’s time as Provost.4 In total we contacted several hundred current and former
University students, administrators, faculty, and staff. 5 And, as further described below, some
individuals we contacted did not respond to our outreach or declined to be interviewed.

The witnesses we interviewed fell into the following categories: 6

 Witnesses with information about Philbert’s conduct. These witnesses included

individuals who had direct experience with Philbert’s conduct or had knowledge of
his conduct.7
 Witnesses who held positions of authority over Philbert. These witnesses included,
among others, a former University President; the University’s current President; three

3
The University’s announcement appears at Appendix 1.
4
We obtained contact information for current and former University employees and students from the
University’s Human Resources Records and Information Services.
5
We were unable to find current contact information for some former University employees or students.
6
Among these 128 witnesses, some witnesses also provided information about relevant University
policies, procedures, and practices. We also spoke to additional University personnel (beyond the 128
witnesses) about relevant policies, procedures, and practices.
7
We discovered that several witnesses had discussed with each other their experiences with and
impressions of Philbert. We considered the potential for those discussions to have affected certain
witness accounts and, as set forth further below, we evaluated those statements against contemporaneous
written accounts and other information about Philbert.

11
 former University Provosts; a former SPH Dean and two former Chairs of the
Environmental Health Sciences Department; and current and former staff members in
the Office of the President, Office of the Provost, and SPH Dean’s office.
 Witnesses involved in the University’s reviews or inquiries regarding allegations of
Philbert’s misconduct, and witnesses who are or were in a position to have received
allegations of misconduct. These witnesses included, among others, senior personnel
in OIE, OGC, Academic Human Resources (“Academic HR”), and SPH.
 Witnesses involved in the University’s selection of Philbert to serve as Dean of SPH
and as Provost. We interviewed 12 of the 14 members of the Dean’s Search
Advisory Committee and then-Provost Philip Hanlon; we also interviewed personnel
who managed the selection process. We interviewed 10 of the 11 members of the
Provost’s Search Committee; we also interviewed personnel who managed the
selection process.8

2. Document and Data Review

We collected over six million documents from the University and from witnesses,
including both electronic and hard copy records. These documents included all available emails
of current and former senior University administrators who held positions of supervisory
authority over Philbert.9

We used a variety of means to identify and review any and all relevant documents. We
ran broad search terms across all collected emails. We also reviewed all of the email
correspondence between certain University officials during key timeframes. We also used
predictive coding—a tool that searches for additional documents connected to documents already
determined to be relevant, but that do not contain any search terms. We validated the
thoroughness of our searches by randomly sampling collected documents, as well as by
conducting manual queries and reviews.

Our document and data review fell into the following categories:

 Philbert’s records. Immediately after Philbert was placed on leave in January 2020,
the University took possession of his University-owned devices, including two Apple
desktop computers, two Apple laptops, an iPad, and four external storage drives. We
retained a forensics expert to image those devices. Our review of these devices
included photographs, videos, and text messages (including iMessages and WhatsApp
messages).

8
The two Dean’s Search Advisory Committee members and one Provost’s Search Committee member
who we did not interview did not respond to our outreach.
9
The University’s information technology team provided invaluable support in this effort. It responded
to our collection requests with speed and thoroughness.

12
 We also collected and reviewed Philbert’s University email and multiple personnel
files.10 In addition, we reviewed relevant calendar, parking, and building entry
records.

 Witnesses’ records. We reviewed numerous records provided to us by individuals

who alleged that Philbert subjected them to sexual harassment, sexual misconduct, or
otherwise inappropriate behavior, or who otherwise had knowledge of such conduct.
These records included text messages (including iMessages and WhatsApp
messages), Facebook messages, LinkedIn messages, photographs, voicemails, and
emails. We also collected and reviewed available emails from these individuals’
University email accounts. These records included the individuals’ communications
with Philbert, as well as contemporaneous communications with others regarding
Philbert’s conduct toward them.

 Records related to Philbert’s selection as Dean of SPH and as Provost. We reviewed

all available University records related to the search process for and selection of
Philbert as Dean of SPH in 2010. We also reviewed emails of individuals involved in
the Dean search and selection process, including then-President Mary Sue Coleman,
then-Provost Philip Hanlon, multiple staff in the Provost’s office, and 11 of the 14
members of the Dean’s Search Advisory Committee. 11

We reviewed all available feedback provided to then-Provost Martha Pollack in

connection with Philbert’s renewal as Dean in 2015.

We reviewed all available records related to the search process for and selection of
Philbert as Provost in 2017. We also reviewed emails of individuals involved in the
Provost search and selection process, including President Schlissel and 10 of the 11
members of the Provost’s Search Committee.12

 Records from key University officials, including records related to University reviews
or investigations. We reviewed the emails of individuals who held positions of
authority over Philbert throughout his employment by the University—including
multiple Presidents and officials within the President’s office, multiple Provosts and
officials within the Provost’s office, and multiple SPH Deans and senior officials in
SPH—to determine whether any of those individuals had received allegations
regarding Philbert’s conduct. We also reviewed emails and records from officials in
University offices in which allegations of Philbert’s conduct may have been raised,
including OIE, Academic HR, and OGC.

10
Philbert had personnel files at several University offices: Central Human Resources, Academic Human
Resources, SPH Dean’s office human resources, and SPH Department of Environmental Health Sciences.
11
Emails were no longer available for three members of the Dean’s Search Advisory Committee.
12
We were unable to secure consent to collect emails from one member of the Provost’s Search
Committee.

13
 As described in this Report, certain University officials became aware of allegations
regarding Philbert’s conduct toward employees and students at different points in his
employment. We reviewed all available records related to any review or
investigation of such allegations, including the emails of the individuals involved,
handwritten notes, and any other available files. We also reviewed the litigation file
from a lab employee’s 2004 wrongful termination lawsuit against Philbert and the
University.

3. Investigative Gaps

Our Report describes actions and events that we found to be supported by the evidence
collected in our investigation. In some instances, the Report points to the absence of evidence or
conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event. Our Report does not detail every piece
of information that we collected in our investigation; rather, it contains the information we
determined necessary to explain the events at issue, our findings, and our recommendations. 13

Our investigation did not always yield a complete record of events. Some individuals did
not respond to our inquiries, and some individuals no longer affiliated with the University would
not speak with us. For example, one former student who, based on the evidence we reviewed,
likely had a relationship with Philbert, declined an interview. Others—including several former
students who we believe experienced or had knowledge of potential misconduct by Philbert—did
not respond to our outreach efforts. We learned that at least one of those students chose not to
respond to us because she feared retaliation by Philbert or others. Philbert himself also declined
to be interviewed.14

Many of the events under investigation happened some time ago—one key sequence of
events, for example, occurred in 2005. Various witnesses provided incomplete information
about such events because they could not recall them clearly or fully. Some of the events fell
outside the University’s records retention period, and thus emails may not have been retained. 15
We also found that several individuals, Philbert among them, communicated with non-University
applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term data retention. In such
cases, we were not always able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to
contemporaneous communications or to fully question witnesses about past statements.

13
For example, our report does not detail information about allegations from 2008, and 2009. We
received information about conduct in those years, but it was not necessary to explain our findings and
recommendations. We also did not include facts that may reveal the identifies of women who
experienced misconduct by Philbert.
14
Before Philbert submitted his letter of resignation, we met by video conference with him and his
attorney to inform them of the status of our investigation, to provide an overview of the allegations and
evidence, and to ask him to participate in an interview. We also provided Philbert and his counsel with
written information regarding our process and the nature of the allegations we were investigating.
15
The University also changed email platforms in 2012. Under certain circumstances, that meant email
sent or received before 2012 was no longer available.
14
 Finally, as of mid-March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic prevented us from gaining
access to University offices and facilities. Although we had already collected records from
numerous University sources by that time, it is possible that additional hard copy records exist
that we did not collect.

Accordingly, while our Report embodies factual findings we believe, with a high level of
confidence, to be accurate and complete, we cannot rule out that information that was
unavailable to us would shed additional light on some of the events we describe in this Report.

4. Names and Appellations

We name in this Report those witnesses and individuals who served in University
leadership positions and played a material role in the events described. We refer more
generically to other University personnel and witnesses. We anonymize all individuals who
were allegedly subjected to sexual misconduct by Philbert to preserve their privacy. We do not
describe or name the specific positions held by these individuals to avoid revealing their
identities.

5. Investigation Team

Our investigative team was headed by WilmerHale partner Danielle Conley, co-chair of
the firm’s Anti-Discrimination Practice and a former Associate Deputy Attorney General at the
U.S. Department of Justice, and WilmerHale partner Aaron Zebley, a former federal prosecutor
who served as the Deputy Special Counsel for the investigation of Russian interference in the
2016 election. They were assisted by several other WilmerHale lawyers, including Tania
Faransso, a counsel in WilmerHale’s higher education practice, as well as outside computer
forensics experts retained by WilmerHale. The team has significant prior experience
investigating sensitive matters, including, in particular, sexual misconduct.

15
III. Facts

A. 1995 to 2004: Professor in the School of Public Health

In 1995, Philbert joined the SPH Environmental Health Sciences Department (“EHS”) as
an Assistant Professor of Toxicology. He became an Associate Professor in 2000 and full
Professor in 2004. From 2000 to 2003, Philbert served as the Associate Chair for Research and
Development in EHS.

1. Philbert’s Conduct Toward Women in His Lab

Philbert ran a lab on the sixth floor of the Thomas Francis Jr. Building, known as SPH-2.
He directed the lab’s work and was the principal investigator on multiple projects funded by its
research grants. Philbert’s lab included as many as sixteen undergraduate lab assistants, graduate
students, postdoctoral fellows, and professional research technicians. In 2003-2004,
approximately ten people worked in Philbert’s lab. Philbert also taught classes during this time.

We interviewed more than a dozen individuals—including faculty and former students—

who worked with or around Philbert during this time. Many of these individuals told us that
Philbert had a reputation for making comments about women’s bodies or about sex and, as a
result, women felt uncomfortable in his presence. Some female graduate students were warned
not to be alone with Philbert when they began working in his lab. Three women described first-
hand experiences with Philbert:

 In the late 1990s, Philbert was introduced to a new student employee in his lab. He
commented that she had “the face of an angel,” but that he would “have to see about
the rest.” The student remembered Philbert looking her “up and down” throughout
her year and a half working in his lab.

 During the same period, Philbert frequently visited a suite of offices used by several
female research scientists. Philbert made sexual propositions to the women or
engaged in conversations about sex, their bodies, or their clothing. On one occasion,
Philbert suggested having a threesome with one of the women and her partner. The
woman never reported Philbert’s comments, which continued throughout her time at
SPH, in part out of fear that doing so would jeopardize her career.

 A research assistant (hereinafter “E-1”) began working in Philbert’s lab in 2003,

shortly after graduating from a master’s program. Philbert often hugged her, and,
when she sought him out to ask a work question, he sometimes closed his office door
and changed the topic to sex. E-1 wrote emails at the time to lab colleagues
describing some of Philbert’s conduct. In a December 2003 email she wrote,
“[Philbert] was giving me a hug and then leaned toward me like he was going to kiss
me on my lips and then kissed me on both cheeks. Then he said, why don’t I marry
him and take him away from this place and have carmel [sic] colored babies with
him.” Philbert’s conduct towards E-1 continued after he became Associate Dean.

16
 Another female student working in another SPH faculty member’s lab around the same
time never heard Philbert make sexual comments about her; but a male fellow student told her
that Philbert had asked him sexually explicit questions about her. 16 On several nights while she
was working late, Philbert looked through the windows of her lab, apparently to see if she was
there, prompting her to ask a male classmate to stay with her when she worked late.

We heard second-hand accounts of other students’ experiences in Philbert’s lab as well. 17

Four separate witnesses described hearing from or about a student who worked in Philbert’s lab
beginning in the late 1990s (hereinafter “Jane Doe”). 18 According to these accounts, Philbert
paid disproportionate attention to Jane Doe. One witness heard directly from Jane Doe that
Philbert cornered her while she was working alone in the lab late one night and that Jane Doe
grabbed a broom and waved it at Philbert. On another night, according to another witness,
Philbert turned up at Jane Doe’s home uninvited. Jane Doe ultimately described having “issues”
with Philbert’s conduct to an SPH faculty member, who encouraged her to speak to the Office of
Student Affairs. The faculty member could not recall what Jane Doe had told him or whether
she had provided details about her concerns. We found no record that Jane Doe did so.

The SPH faculty member who referred Jane Doe to the Office of Student Affairs told us
he never witnessed Philbert engage in misconduct but that he heard a number of students
complain about Philbert—he said it was a common sentiment that students did not feel
comfortable around Philbert. The faculty member said it was not in his nature to press for
details, and he did not know whether the discomfort involved misconduct. Another faculty
member recounted private conversations with Philbert from around this time in which Philbert
referred to a group of female Epidemiology students as the “epid-honeys,” and another instance
when Philbert commented on the breasts of a group of female students, but noted that Philbert
was “all business” during his classroom interactions with students. The faculty member thought
the comments were odd, but he did not consider reporting Philbert, in part, because he was a new
faculty member at the time and believed his career advancement depended on the support of his
fellow faculty.

Other faculty members at the time told us they noticed Philbert’s “flirtatious” behavior
but did not see it as problematic or did not feel comfortable getting involved. Other faculty
members stated that Philbert was known for his informal tone but that they had never witnessed

16
The fellow student did not recall this conversation and stated that he was unaware of inappropriate
conduct by Philbert.
17
We attempted to contact every student identified as having witnessed or been subjected to Philbert’s
sexual comments or conduct; some did not respond or declined our request to interview them.
18
In 2018, two years before our investigation, Jane Doe corresponded with a witness in our investigation.
The correspondence does not describe Philbert’s conduct toward Jane Doe, but when responding to the
witness’s statement that “he harassed me when I worked there,” Jane Doe stated, “I was certainly not
immune to those behaviors. That said, since I still work within the [public health] world I don’t think I
would be interested in joining in any legal case as I fear what that would do to my career.”

17
behavior that they found concerning. Still others described Philbert as professional and were
unaware of any troubling behavior.

Not every student or staff member from Philbert’s lab recalled him making comments
about sex or behaving in a sexualized manner. Some students told us they appreciated Philbert’s
mentorship and had never seen him engage in misconduct.

2. The Provost’s Office, the SPH Dean’s Office, and the Office of Academic
Human Resources Receive Allegations of a Relationship Between Philbert
and a Lab Employee

In September 2003, Philbert notified a male lab employee, Tom Komorowski, that he
would be laid off as part of a Reduction in Force (“RIF”) due to a loss of grant funding. Later
that month, Komorowski met with Jeff Frumkin, Director of Academic HR, to complain that the
RIF violated University policy and that he had been discriminated against because of his age.
Komorowski also said he believed Philbert was in a close personal relationship with a female
employee in Philbert’s lab, and that he was being laid off so that the female employee could
retain her position.

By early October 2003, the Provost’s office had learned of the situation. On October 7,
2003, a staff member in the Provost’s office emailed Frumkin: “I updated [Provost] Paul
[Courant] on the situation in SPH. He said to be sure to treat the senior faculty member very
carefully. Please keep me posted on this one!” Then-SPH Dean Noreen Clark also learned of
the situation.

On October 13, 2003, a senior SPH faculty member interviewed Philbert about the
alleged relationship. According to an email written by the senior faculty member immediately
after his interview of Philbert, he “did not learn anything that would confirm the charges about a
personal relationship with [the female lab employee].”

The senior faculty member did not recall investigating allegations about Philbert in 2003.
We reviewed his notes from the time, including notes he made in preparation for his interview of
Philbert. His notes and the notes of a colleague refer to certain other employees who worked in
Philbert’s lab at the time. The notes indicate that the information came from Komorowski. One
set of notes reads, in part: “[Jane Doe] worked in lab / [Male lab employee] – Martin showed up
uninvited at home. / Martin is prone to ‘boundary issues.’” The other set of notes reads, in part:
“[Male lab employee] (worked in the lab) knows [Jane Doe] where Martin dropped in at their
home.” We found no record of the University investigating this information. Neither the senior
faculty member nor Frumkin recalled this information or taking any follow-up actions.

In June 2004, Komorowski filed a lawsuit against Philbert and another SPH official
related to the RIF. The complaint contained no allegations about any personal relationship
between Philbert and the female lab employee. Both Philbert and the female lab employee were

18
nevertheless deposed on the subject, and both testified under oath that there had been no
romantic relationship.19 The lawsuit settled in November 2005.

B. 2004 to 2010: Senior Associate Dean in the School of Public Health

Philbert was promoted to full Professor in 2004. That same year, SPH Dean Noreen
Clark selected him as Associate Dean of Research in SPH. Philbert continued in that role when
Ken Warner became SPH Dean in 2005.

1. Philbert Kisses E-1’s Neck

E-1, the research assistant who began working in Philbert’s lab in 2003, 20 told us that
there was a “gradual build up” of Philbert’s attention directed at her. She described him hugging
her in his office on multiple occasions and, from time to time, moving toward her as though to
kiss her on the lips, before diverting and kissing her on her cheeks. E-1 said that in one
encounter Philbert said he wanted to have “hot sex on his desk” with her.

In October 2004, depositions were underway in Komorowski’s lawsuit and Philbert was
caucusing with counsel. E-1 wrote an email at the time:

[Philbert] was running back and forth to his office to tell his lawers [sic] on the
phone. He wanted me to come to his office for a ‘hug’ after he was off the phone,
but I didn’t go and then he came back to me for the ‘hug’ and I had to kind of walk
him out into the hall to get him out of there and leave me alone.

At another point in the email E-1 wrote, “Martin is still being the perverted old man that he is.
He got a little to [sic] close for comfort recently and since then I have been avoiding him.”

In early 2005, a professor in SPH learned about an incident between E-1 and Philbert. E-
1 told us about an incident in 2005 in which Philbert hugged her in his office and then leaned
down and kissed her neck. As Philbert was kissing E-1, his phone rang. He let her out of his
embrace, and E-1 fled his office. Later that day and again that evening, Philbert found E-1 and
asked her if she was “freaked out.” She told him that she was.

After E-1 left Philbert’s office that day, she saw two graduate students she knew who
worked in a lab down the hall; she immediately told them what had happened. One of the
graduate students (hereinafter “GS-1”) confirmed these events when we interviewed her
(including that the other graduate student was present for E-1’s report). The other graduate
student did not respond to our request for an interview.

Shortly after E-1 spoke to GS-1 and the other graduate student, one or both appear to
have told an SPH professor (hereinafter “the SPH Professor”) about E-1’s experience. The SPH

19
We reviewed the litigation record, including deposition transcripts. The testimony did not establish the
existence of an inappropriate relationship between Philbert and the female lab employee.
20
See Supra Section III(A).

19
Professor periodically kept a journal about events at work; she made entries in the journal at the
time of the events or within weeks thereafter. The journal contains entries about events in 2005
and 2010 (hereinafter “the Notes”).21 Both graduate students’ names appear in the Notes in
passages describing Philbert’s conduct. The Notes reflect that March 2005 was the first time the
graduate students told the SPH Professor about sexual advances by Philbert toward E-1.

2. The SPH Professor Receives Information that Philbert Kissed Another

Student’s Neck, and about E-1’s Encounter with Philbert

In May 2005, the SPH Professor spoke with another student (hereinafter “Mary Roe”).
As recorded in the Notes, and the SPH Professor confirmed to us, Mary Roe cried when
describing Philbert’s conduct. Mary Roe told the SPH Professor that Philbert was “‘a bad man . .
. all he wants to talk about is bad stuff.’” When the SPH Professor asked her for details, Mary
Roe said Philbert hugged her and kissed her neck. The SPH Professor asked Mary Roe if she
had told Philbert to stop, and she said, “‘he knows I hate it.’” Mary Roe insisted that the SPH
Professor not report the information.22 Mary Roe did not respond to our requests to interview
her.

In a meeting the next day, the SPH Professor told SPH Dean Ken Warner that she had
received information that a male faculty member had made “inappropriate sexual comments and
advances to students and staff.” She did not name Philbert in this conversation. She wrote in her
Notes that Warner responded with words to the effect of “these things sometimes get blown out
of proportion,” but that he would address it if the SPH Professor learned something “more
specific and direct[].”

The following month, June 2005, E-1 asked to meet with the SPH Professor. E-1 told the
SPH Professor that Philbert had been propositioning her. Specifically, E-1 said Philbert asked
her to marry him, to run away together, and “‘to have his caramel colored babies’ . . . [and] [l]ast
Friday he said ‘something about chocolate syrup sex.’” E-1 asked the SPH Professor to keep the
information confidential and not to take any action. The SPH Professor recorded all of the
information in her Notes.

3. The SPH Professor Conveys E-1’s and Mary Roe’s First-Hand Accounts
of Philbert’s Sexual Comments and Conduct to the Provost’s Office, OIE,
and the SPH Dean

On August 8, 2005, the SPH Professor met with the Vice Provost for Academic and
Faculty Affairs with responsibility for SPH, Lori Pierce. 23 The SPH Professor described to

21
The SPH Professor told us she re-read the Notes in advance of our first interview to refresh her
recollection. At our request, the SPH Professor later gave us a copy of her journal.
22
According to the Notes, Mary Roe also told the SPH Professor that E-1 has “lots of trouble with
Martin,” and that Jane Doe “had similar trouble with Martin.” According to the SPH Professor, Mary
Roe feared retaliation by Philbert.
23
The SPH Professor could not meet with Pierce earlier for personal and professional reasons.

20
Pierce the allegations she had received about Philbert’s conduct. At Pierce’s insistence, the SPH
Professor identified Philbert during this meeting. Pierce told the SPH Professor that she needed
to tell Warner about Philbert’s conduct and inform Warner that she intended to report it to OIE.

Later that day, the SPH Professor called Warner, and she met separately with Anthony
Walesby, the Director of OIE, and Gloria Hage, a lawyer from OGC.

According to the SPH Professor’s Notes, she told Warner that she had “firsthand
accounts of inappropriate sexual behavior of a faculty member” and planned to meet with OIE.
The precise words that came next are not clear. The Professor’s Notes record her understanding
that Warner said that she should not have reported Philbert by name if the women were unwilling
to do so themselves, and that doing so could result in some form of liability. Warner did not
recall the conversation but told us he would never have suggested that the SPH Professor not
bring information forward to University officials—on the contrary, he would have encouraged
her to do so. He told us that he was concerned only about public accusations in the absence of
evidence, and that it was plausible that he suggested that the SPH Professor be careful if that
were the situation.

In any event, the SPH Professor received explicit direction later that day from both
Walesby and Hage that she was required to report the information, with Philbert’s name, to
OIE.24 The SPH Professor thereupon reported to OIE the information that she had received from
GS-1, Mary Roe, E-1, and potentially information about Jane Doe.

The next day, August 9, the SPH Professor informed Warner in an email that she had met
with OIE to fulfill her reporting obligations and did not intend to pursue the matter further.

4. Walesby Attempts to Speak to E-1 and Mary Roe

Walesby had no recollection of the specific steps he took to follow up on the allegations
conveyed by the SPH Professor. He recalled only that there had been no formal complaint and
that the alleged victims did not come forward personally or cooperate in the inquiry.

We recovered three emails written by Walesby describing the steps he took to follow up
on the allegations. He wrote two emails in late August 2005, “Update” and “Update II,” to
Warner, Pierce, Frumkin (Director of Academic HR), and Daniel Sharphorn (a lawyer from
OGC). He wrote a third email in October 2010 to Pierce and others, purporting to summarize
“the file from August 2005.”25 We reviewed the files maintained by OIE and were unable to find
a formal case file, which is consistent with Walesby’s memory that there were likely to be only
informal notes in the absence of a formal complaint.

24
Neither Walesby nor Hage recalled the meeting with the SPH Professor.
25
Walesby wrote this summary at the request of Pierce when the 2005 allegations about Philbert surfaced
during the SPH Dean’s search. See infra Section III(C).

21
 The paper record shows that Walesby contacted the three witnesses named by the SPH
Professor, and that only one of them provided any information to him:

 A graduate student26 told Walesby she had no first-hand experience of inappropriate

conduct by Philbert. But she said that Philbert had a “bad reputation” among female
students, and she identified another student who reported being hugged twice by Philbert
and, possibly, that Philbert requested the other student to “sleep w/him if not married.”
She said she was otherwise not comfortable sharing second-hand information.

 Mary Roe cried when Walesby spoke to her, and she refused to tell him anything. The
SPH Professor told us she recalled that Walesby told her about Mary Roe’s reaction to
his outreach and that he commented, “‘that doesn’t happen if everything is ok.’” The
SPH Professor told us that Mary Roe was furious with her for having reported the
information to OIE.

 Walesby made numerous attempts to talk to E-1 between August 23 and September 6,
but, other than one brief exchange about having a later conversation, E-1 declined to talk
with him.

In Walesby’s 2010 email, he said that he also spoke with another SPH faculty member on
September 6, 2005.27 That faculty member told him that he had heard rumors about Philbert’s
“women’s issues” but did not know details. (The same faculty member had referred Jane Doe to
the Office of Academic Affairs,28 and told us about a common sentiment that students did not
feel comfortable around Philbert.) In addition, Walesby tried to locate a former SPH graduate
student who allegedly had information about Philbert.

On October 4, 2005, Walesby met with Warner, Frumkin, and Sharphorn to summarize
the work he had completed.29 Frumkin took handwritten notes.30 According to the SPH
Professor and her contemporaneous Notes, Walesby told her afterward that Warner was taking
the matter seriously and wanted to do something about it.

Walesby also asked the SPH Professor for her assistance in getting E-1 to speak with
him. E-1 told us she recalled a later meeting with Walesby and the SPH Professor, but neither
Walesby nor the SPH Professor recalled such a meeting, and the SPH Professor’s Notes contain

No witnesses identified this person, but the content of her statement and the context suggests that she
26

was likely GS-1, the graduate student discussed earlier who spoke to the SPH Professor.
27
The Notes refer to this faculty member as having intervened between Philbert and Jane Doe. The Notes
also state that Jane Doe had “trouble” with Philbert that was similar to that reported by Mary Roe.
28
See Supra Section III(A).
29
No one at the meeting recalled the particulars of what was discussed.
30
Frumkin’s notes describe the allegations in a manner that is consistent with Walesby’s emails, which
are summarized above.

22
no reference to it.31 According to E-1, Walesby asked her for specific dates and details about
Philbert’s conduct at the meeting, but she did not provide that information because it would have
identified her and she feared retaliation by Philbert.

5. “It was determined that OIE would not conduct an investigation”

Warner recalled meeting with Walesby and other University officials about the matter at
some point after Walesby tried to interview the women who reported to the SPH Professor.
Warner told us that he learned from Walesby that the women who made the allegations did not
wish to pursue their claims, and as a result, OIE could not conduct an investigation. He
remembered Walesby being “very disappointed when the student wasn’t willing to pursue this.
He felt it was an important case that deserved to be pursued.” He recalled Walesby saying, or
perhaps expressing the feeling, that there was nothing more he could do and that he had no
choice but to drop the matter.

Walesby told us—after reviewing the emails he wrote at the time—that the University
had only second-hand reports and, when the first-hand witnesses refused to talk to him, there was
nothing on which to build an investigation. His 2010 email summary (which was written using
the notes on the 2005 incidents) concludes, “it was determined that OIE would not conduct an
investigation.” Walesby told us that this was a “collective decision” by him, Frumkin, and OGC.
Warner told us that he did not participate in that decision but instead was informed about what he
referred to as the “University decision.”

Walesby acknowledged in our interview that OIE can interview other witnesses if the
first-hand witnesses refuse to provide information. He said that step, however, would also have
been a “collective decision” by all of the officials involved and “required a level of seriousness”
to the allegation. He also said that in this case, he had contacted several people and it was not
clear to him that there were more investigative steps to take.

6. Warner Meets with Philbert and “Reads Him the Riot Act”

Warner told us that Walesby found the allegations involving E-1 and Mary Roe credible
and that, because two women were making similar allegations based on separate interactions
with Philbert, Warner also believed that the allegations were “sufficiently credible” and assumed
the conduct happened. Warner recalled being “horrified” by Philbert’s alleged behavior and
feeling compelled to take steps to put him on the “correct” path. Therefore, Warner decided that
he would speak to Philbert.32

31
The Notes describe the SPH Professor talking with E-1 on November 30, 2005, and then meeting with
Hage on December 8, 2005. According to the Notes, the SPH Professor attended the meeting at E-1’s
request, but E-1 did not ultimately show up for the meeting.
32
Frumkin told us that the University was “highly decentralized” in 2005, and that deans were expected
to handle issues in their schools. He had some memory of that being a consideration in how the
University ultimately responded to the allegations against Philbert.

23
 Warner told us that he “read [Philbert] the riot act” and explained to him that such
behavior was completely inappropriate and that Philbert was jeopardizing his career. Philbert
initially acted “bewildered” and said that he did not know what the Dean was talking about.
Warner told him the allegations were deemed credible and had been raised “at the University
level.” At some point in the conversation, Philbert stopped denying the allegations. While
Philbert never admitted anything, Warner thought Philbert appeared to accept what he was
saying, and Warner shifted into the mode of “counseling” Philbert.

Warner believed that Philbert listened and took the advice very seriously. He told us that
he suspected the incidents had happened as alleged, but “I thought he heard [me] loud and clear.
I put the fear of God in him.” Thereafter, Warner neither witnessed nor heard about any similar
conduct by Philbert.

According to E-1, around 2006, Philbert asked her if she would sleep with him. 33 She told
him no. E-1 said Philbert continued to press the question, and she continued to decline. E-1 told
us that, in January 2007, she quit her job after feeling that Philbert was retaliating against her.

7. Dean’s Office Staff Receives Information about Sexual Comments by

Philbert

During Philbert’s time as an Associate Dean, he was known throughout the Dean’s office
as a gregarious and affable presence. He greeted people in the hallway and was known for
hugging employees. One staff member who had become friends with Philbert described one
occasion when Philbert hugged her and commented that her breasts felt good against his chest.
In another conversation with the same employee, Philbert insinuated that he hoped to have an
orgasm. The employee told us Philbert made both comments in or around 2010 or 2011.

The employee told us she thought Philbert’s comments “crossed the line,” and she
informed her supervisor about them. But she asked the supervisor not to file an official report
because she and Philbert were friends and because reporting would be “way too risky” for her
career. The supervisor told us that the employee told her about the conduct and that she made a
written record of the conversation, which she stored in the personnel files in her office (which we
were unable to find in that office, or elsewhere). The supervisor’s regular practice would have
been to inform her own supervisor—another SPH Associate Dean—but she could not recall
specifically doing so. The Associate Dean had no memory of having been told about the
incidents, and we were not able to locate any written report to her.

In the fall of 2010, an employee in the Dean’s office traveled with Philbert and others on
University business. On the trip, Philbert said to her, “You have great lips. I would love to kiss
you.” She flatly said no. She did not recall any other incidents with Philbert. 34

33
We do not know the exact timing of this comment vis-à-vis Warner’s conversation with Philbert.
34
We also heard second-hand reports about two other women, one graduate student and one SPH
employee, experiencing similar conduct around this time. Neither woman responded to our request for an
interview. A University contractor who worked with the SPH Dean’s office between 2005 and 2010 also
described comments and conduct by Philbert that made her uncomfortable.
24
 C. 2010: Selection as Dean of the School of Public Health

For much of 2010, Philbert was a candidate to succeed Ken Warner as Dean of SPH. On
November 29, 2010, the University announced Philbert’s appointment, effective January 1, 2011.
While Philbert was under consideration, University personnel received information about his
conduct toward women.

1. Overview of Dean’s Search Process

In late January 2010, then-Provost Teresa Sullivan began soliciting input for individuals
to serve on the Dean’s Search Advisory Committee (“Search Committee”). That same month
Sullivan was selected as the next President of the University of Virginia, and the University of
Michigan named Philip Hanlon, who had been the Vice Provost for Academic and Budgetary
Affairs, as its next Provost. Hanlon assumed the office in late June 2010.

The Search Committee had 14 members, including SPH faculty, faculty from related
schools (such as the Medical School), community stakeholders, and two SPH students. An SPH
faculty member, Paula Lantz, chaired the Search Committee. Neither Sullivan nor Hanlon was a
member of the Search Committee, and neither participated in Committee deliberations. Two
staff members from the Office of the Provost—one of whom was a search specialist—helped
manage the search process. The search specialist attended the Search Committee meetings but
did not actively participate in them.

In the first phase of the search process, which occurred in the spring of 2010, the Search
Committee sought out candidates, reviewed applications, and selected individuals to participate
in interviews. An outside search firm, Spencer Stuart, managed the recruitment, application, and
screening processes, and provided the Search Committee with a list of 38 initial candidates.
From those candidates, the Search Committee selected ten for interviews.

In the second phase, in mid-July 2010, the Search Committee conducted interviews at the
Detroit airport. Following those interviews, the Committee selected candidates to participate in
on-campus visits. Four candidates, including Philbert, made visits, during which each made a
presentation and met with SPH faculty, students, and organizations. After the candidates’ visits,
members of the SPH community were given the opportunity to offer feedback on the candidates,
including via a confidential survey.

In the third phase, in October 2010, the Search Committee considered the feedback from
the campus visits and presented the Provost with a slate of three candidates. As was typical for
search processes, the Committee did not make a recommendation from among the three
candidates, but discussed the relative merits of each candidate during a meeting with Hanlon.

After presenting the slate of candidates to the Provost, the Search Committee had no
further official role. The finalists were narrowed to two candidates, including Philbert, and
interviewed again. Hanlon, then-President Mary Sue Coleman, and other University leaders
conducted the interviews. Hanlon ultimately recommended Philbert as the next Dean, and the
Board of Regents approved the appointment.

25
 2. Dean’s Search Committee Receives Information Regarding Philbert’s
Classroom Conduct

During one or more of the Search Committee meetings in the spring of 2010, a student
representative on the Committee described Philbert’s classroom conduct from several years
earlier.35 The student representative was enrolled in an SPH class with Philbert during the fall of
2006 or spring of 2007. She had heard rumors when she started the class that Philbert made
women feel uncomfortable with inappropriate comments and jokes, and she described to the
Search Committee her sense of Philbert from her classroom experience with him. She also told
the Search Committee about a remark Philbert had made during a lecture—that women have
high rates of urinary tract infections because “the playground and the trash heap are too close
together.” Some Committee members recalled the student representative describing Philbert’s
comment in similar terms;36 it was clear to them that she had concerns about Philbert.

The same Committee members recalled that the Committee generally did not consider
Philbert’s comment disqualifying or especially significant. The student representative was
dismayed by the Committee’s reaction and that it continued to view Philbert as a viable
candidate, but she told us that she did not see value in pushing the matter further given the
Committee’s reaction.

The search specialist from the Provost’s office recalled the comment, and that it was
reported to another member of the Provost’s staff in the course of the Committee’s work. She
also remembered that staff member taking steps to follow up about the comment. 37

3. Provost Hanlon Receives Information about Philbert’s “inappropriate

joking comments to women”

The work of the Search Committee was an agenda item at a meeting between Hanlon and
a member of his staff on June 30. The agenda showed that candidate interviews were scheduled
for the following month. As to internal candidates, it stated:
Martin Philbert – inappropriate joking comments to women. No more.
Ask Phil about past investigation.
Neither Hanlon nor the staff member recalled the meeting or could explain the references to
Philbert on the agenda.

35
The student representative first met with Lantz to share her concerns. Lantz suggested that she share
them with the full Committee, which she did.
36
Other Committee members did not recall the graduate student sharing the comments or raising
concerns.
37
The other staff member had no memory of the comment or of making any inquiry about it.

26
 4. The Search Committee Receives an Anonymous Report Alleging
Misconduct by Philbert

Philbert was interviewed by the Search Committee on July 17, 2010. The Search
Committee later selected Philbert for an on-campus visit. Philbert was the only internal
candidate to make it to this stage. His on-campus visit took place on October 7-8, 2010.

Each candidate made a presentation and met with SPH faculty, students, and
organizations during the campus visit. The SPH community was then invited to comment via a
confidential survey, and a few individuals were invited to email their feedback to Lantz, the
Search Committee Chair. The first several pages of the confidential survey compiled basic
statistics from the scored feedback. Philbert’s survey results were generally positive, with 65%
of the survey participants rating him a highly desirable candidate; only eight percent said Philbert
was not an acceptable candidate.

Section 5 of the survey called for a narrative description of the “main perceived
weaknesses of the candidate.” Philbert elicited 59 separate comments covering four pages. The
second page contained the following comment:

I have had countless interactions with this candidate—when he was a professor in

class, in his role as associate dean, and as a colleague. My major concern is that
in all of those roles, I have witnessed firsthand his inappropriate comments and
behaviors with respect to female students, staff, and faculty. He made
inappropriate comments and jokes about female genitalia in class. I witnessed his
inappropriate sexual banter with colleagues. As a junior faculty member, I was
subject to inappropriate and unwanted sexual comments and suggestions. I felt
threatened—not physically but in terms of my job security given his senior status
and as my associate dean for academics and research. I would not be comfortable
with this man as dean of our school.

The Search Committee met on October 14 to discuss the online surveys and other issues,
including, according to the written agenda, “[c]andidates’ strengths and weaknesses.” Of all the
members of the Search Committee we interviewed, only Lantz recalled the Committee reviewing
the above comment. One of Lantz’s contemporaneous emails, as detailed below, shows that she
had read the written comment; she wrote of Philbert, “But I think the general issue of gender and
behavior, demeanor and baggage from prior interactions does need to be addressed; and it does
come up in the feedback comments.”38
At the end of the October 14 meeting, according to a contemporaneous email from Lantz,
the Committee voted “in regard to whether or not each candidate should be on the slate” of
finalists to present to Hanlon. Philbert received 12 yes votes and 0 no votes, “although it was
clear [the graduate student representative] did not want to vote yes but did anyway.” The other

38
During her interview, Lantz recalled the comment prompting one of the Committee’s graduate student
representatives to disclose Philbert’s comment about women having high rates of urinary tract infections.
But the graduate student representative—and multiple other Committee members—said that the graduate
student had reported Philbert’s comment to the Committee several months earlier.

27
two candidates received more no votes than yes votes. The next day Lantz spoke with Hanlon.
Lantz wrote in an email to the Committee that Hanlon told her that he wanted the Committee to
bring all three candidates forward and not to “make any recommendation that would further
narrow the pool.”

5. Search Committee Member, Search Committee Chair, and Provost Hanlon

Receive Information about Allegations of Misconduct by Philbert in 2005

During the same week that the Search Committee met to discuss the feedback from
candidates’ campus visits and to vote on the slate of finalists, information about the 2005
allegations reached the Lantz and the Provost’s office. 39

In early October, a member of the Search Committee learned about the 2005 allegations
involving Philbert.40 The Search Committee member conveyed the information to Lantz.

Lantz told us she met in person with outgoing SPH Dean Warner, who was not on the
Search Committee, to discuss the information. According to Lantz, Warner told her that there
had been an “investigation” in 2005 and that it had not substantiated any wrongdoing, that the
details of the matter were not Lantz’s business or the business of the Search Committee, and that
Philbert had been counseled at the time. Warner told us he did not recall speaking with the Lantz
at that time, nor did he recall anyone asking him about the 2005 allegations as part of the 2010
Dean’s search process. He did, however, tell us that he was surprised when Philbert became
Dean “given the seriousness of the allegations.”

Contemporaneous emails show that Lantz also reported the information to the Provost’s
office on or before October 11.41 Pierce remembered Lantz raising an issue that prompted her to
ask for more information. Emails from the time show that Pierce asked Walesby for a summary
of the 2005 allegations; the emails stated that the summary was intended to help Pierce prepare
for a meeting with Hanlon. Walesby sent the summary that follows on October 11:

Okay – I found the file from August 2005 and have attached the emails I have
associated with this matter. Here’s what happened:

 August 8, 2005: I met with [the SPH Professor]. She said that in March
2005 a Graduate Student42 and UM staff member43 expressed concern to

39
See supra Section III(C)(5).
40
See supra Section III(C)(5). The information likely originated with the SPH Professor, who passed it to
another SPH faculty member, who then provided it to a Committee member. But the SPH Professor
could not confirm any of those inferences.
41
Lantz had no memory of making that report when we interviewed her.
42
Based on the evidence in our investigation, this likely refers to Mary Roe.
43
Based on the evidence in our investigation, this likely refers to E-1.

28
 her about Professor Martin Philbert. The Graduate Student alleged that
Professor Philbert was a “bad man” who did “bad stuff.” In specific, the
student told [the SPH Professor] on May 23, 2005, that Professor Philbert
would hug her and kiss her on the neck when they were alone. It was
alleged that another female student had similar interactions with Professor
Philbert and [a different SPH faculty member] had to intervene to help in
2002 or 2003.
 A staff member44 alleged to [the SPH Professor] that on June 30, 2005,
Professor Philbert asked her to marry him, mentioned something about
“chocolate syrup sex” and hugged and kissed her as well.
 [The SPH Professor] reported that Professor Philbert “leers” at students in
her lab. In response to the information, we reached out to several people
who reportedly knew about this matter:
 On August 23, 2005, I sent an email to the Graduate Student 45 identified
by [the SPH Professor]. She said that she did not have any inappropriate
personal experiences with Professor Philbert. However, she said he does
have a bad reputation among the female students. She stated that another
student told her that Professor Philbert had hugged her twice. My notes
also say “sleep w/him if not married,” but I don’t recall if that is what the
student alleged that Professor Philbert said to her or exactly what the
context was. This student said she was not comfortable sharing “second
hand” information.
 I spoke to another Graduate Student46 on August 24th. I explained why I
was calling and the no-retaliation clause in University policy. The student
refused to provide any information. I advised her to call me if she
changed her mind—I never heard back from her.
 On September 6th I spoke to [the SPH faculty member who allegedly
intervened on behalf of Jane Doe]. He said he did not recall any specific
discussion involving female students and Professor Philbert. He said he
has heard rumors about Professor Philbert and “women’s issues,” but he
tries to avoid Professor Philbert’s personal life. [The SPH Professor] did
not provide any further details.
 I also reached out to the female staff member47 identified by [the SPH
Professor]. It looks like I tried to reach her several times and was able to
speak to her briefly on August 26th, but never again. If my notes are
correct, it appears this staff member was terminated from her position on

44
Based on the evidence in our investigation, this likely refers to E-1.
45
Based on the evidence in our investigation, this likely refers to GS-1, who spoke to E-1 after Philbert
kissed E-1’s neck. See supra Section III(B)(1).
46
Based on the evidence in our investigation, this likely refers to Mary Roe.
47
Based on the evidence in our investigation, this likely refers to E-1.

29
 July 1, 2005. I believe she is a Research Associate II. From my notes, it
appears that I tried to reach her on the following occasions:

1. August 23 : 2 times
2. August 24: 2 times
3. August 25: 2 times
4. August 26: 1 time
5. August 26 – spoke to staff member. She said will call me on Monday –
Aug. 29th
6. No word from staff member on Aug. 29th
7. September 2 : 1 time
8. September 6: 1 time

That’s all I have in my file. I know that we all met with the Dean and
discussed this matter, but I don’t have a record of that meeting in my file.
Based on the information, I remember that it was determined that OIE would
not conduct an investigation and that Dean Warner would speak to Professor
Philbert about this matter.

I hope this is helpful.

Hanlon’s calendar shows a meeting with Pierce on October 13. According to an email
she wrote at the time, Pierce “let [Hanlon] know about the concerns that had been raised by
Paula Lantz.” She had planned to review with Hanlon the summary written by Walesby, “but
[Hanlon] said he was already aware of what had transpired.” 48 Pierce told us that Hanlon was
also in touch with Lantz, but Pierce did not know what they discussed. We were not able to
ascertain from witness accounts or contemporaneous emails whether Lantz discussed the 2005
allegations with Hanlon. Hanlon himself could not recall who first reported the allegations to
him.

That same day, October 13, Lantz emailed the Committee member who first received the
report about the 2005 allegations:

I have investigated the issue you brought to my attention last week. Here is
what I learned: A former chair of the dept in question actually did ask for an
investigation of this person because of a concern that inappropriate behavior
had taken place—basically unwanted advances. The staff member did not
want to pursue it, but an investigation was conducted anyway. No wrong-
doing was revealed after what was described to me as an “intense
investigation.” As such, there is no record of inappropriate behavior and no
formal grievance was ever filed. However, it is also the case that no one
really knows for sure if something happened. Could be a case of flirtation that
was misinterpreted; or could be a case of something much worse.

48
Neither Hanlon nor Pierce recalled the meeting or what was discussed when we interviewed them.

30
 I do not want to bring this up with the search committee as a specific instance
because the investigation revealed no wrongdoing. But I think the general
issue of gender and behavior, demeanor and baggage from prior interactions
does need to be addressed; and it does come up in the feedback comments.
You, of course, are free to bring it up if you don’t agree with my perspective.

The Committee member responded that she agreed but would “want to keep this as information
that is available to the Committee or Provost if further diligence is recommended/needed.” None
of the Committee members we interviewed recalled learning about the 2005 allegations, but an
email sent one week later by Hanlon (further described below) states that the Committee was
aware of the allegations.

6. Provost Hanlon Receives Information about the Komorowski Litigation

and the 2005 Allegations, and Meets with the Search Committee

On Monday, October 18, the day before the final Search Committee meeting, Hanlon’s
calendar showed that he had a meeting with Warner “re SPH search.” Neither Hanlon nor the
Dean recalled the meeting.

That evening, a member of Hanlon’s staff forwarded him the October 11 summary of the
2005 allegations. The staff member had received the summary earlier that day after speaking to
Frumkin about Hanlon’s “desire for information on [Philbert].” The staff member’s email also
asked Hanlon if he wanted additional information from an attorney in OGC, Dave Masson, who
could describe the Komorowski litigation.49 Hanlon responded to the email within minutes,
stating, “I need to find out a lot more. Please set up a time for me to talk with Dave Masson and
with Anthony [Walesby].”

The following day, October 19, Hanlon met with the Search Committee. The search
specialist from the Provost’s office believes she gave Hanlon packets of materials on each of the
three finalists in connection with the meeting (potentially after the meeting). She could not recall
the contents of the packets, and Hanlon had no specific memory of the materials when we
interviewed him. The search specialist told us that, among other materials, the materials she
gave Hanlon could have included Philbert’s campus survey results—which, according to the
search specialist, would have been accessible to Hanlon in electronic form—and the
Committee’s “Confidential Summary of Feedback.” Lantz and another Committee member
recalled the Committee collaborating on the “Confidential Summary of Feedback” and using it
as a guide for discussing the candidates with Hanlon. The summary of feedback included one
page on Philbert’s background, his strengths and “concerns.” The final paragraph on Philbert
stated:

He has some baggage in terms of interpersonal relationships and perceived

inappropriate behavior, especially with females. He has been accused of making
inappropriate, gendered comments in class. He also has been overly flirtatious
49
See supra Section III(A)(2). The same email described the Provost’s office staff member talking to
Masson about the Komorowski lawsuit “a couple of months ago.” Neither the staff member nor Hanlon
could explain why she made that inquiry at that time.

31
 with many female staff and colleagues, which has made some recipients
uncomfortable. Martin received pointed feedback/warnings regarding this
behavior when he became a senior associate dean 5 years ago. All of the
examples and reports of inappropriate behavior appear to be at least 5 years old.
Thus, there is no evidence that this is an ongoing or current problem. However,
rumors and negative feelings among some members of the SPH community
linger.

During the meeting, Hanlon made opening remarks and Lantz summarized the feedback
on each candidate. Committee members told us that Hanlon asked each Committee member
whether the candidates were acceptable. The student representative who had described
classroom comments by Philbert recalled that she was the only person who did not say that
Philbert was acceptable. No Committee member specifically recalled discussing Philbert’s
conduct toward women in the meeting with Hanlon, but notes from the meeting taken by the
search specialist in the Provost’s office refer to “Concern about issues that have come up.”

Later that day, Hanlon met with Masson about the Komorowski lawsuit. He met
separately with Walesby about the 2005 allegations. 50 Walesby did not recall the meeting;
Masson remembered discussing the lawsuit but could not recall any details. Hanlon did not
recall either meeting, but he told us that he trusted Walesby and found him to be thorough,
professional, and a person of high integrity, and that he would have relied on Masson’s
assessment of the Komorowski lawsuit.

The same day, the search specialist in the Provost’s office sent an email to the Academic
Records office requesting information about four students. The students included Jane Doe,
Mary Roe, and two SPH graduate students (one of whom had spoken to the SPH Professor about
Philbert’s conduct), each of whom had witnessed or been subjected to Philbert’s alleged
misconduct in 2005.51 None of the individuals is named in Walesby’s summary of the 2005
allegations that was provided to Hanlon the day before, but three of them are described in it. 52

Neither the search specialist nor the other staff member who was copied on the request to
Academic Records could explain how they came to ask for information about the four students.
The staff member told us that any fact finding at that stage in a Dean’s search would have been
the Provost doing “due diligence.”

Hanlon told us he had no specific recollection of the contents or purpose of the email
requesting information about the four students. However, in response to a written question on
the same topic, he said “we identified a number of prior students who had worked in Professor

50
Hanlon’s calendar does not show either meeting, but, as described below, in a later email to then-
President Coleman, Hanlon indicated that he had met with both Walesby and Masson.
51
E-1, who was a University employee in 2005, is not on this list. Everyone on the list was a student in
2005.
52
Walesby’s meeting with Hanlon on October 19 makes him the most likely source of the actual names,
but we were unable to confirm that.

32
Philbert’s lab for outreach to ask their opinion on whether he was a supportive mentor, to ask
them to characterize the climate in the lab, and to ask whether they had seen any evidence that
might support the allegations made 5 years earlier by [the SPH Professor].” 53 Hanlon could not
recall the specific feedback, but he said that the general response was highly positive and no
information was received that supported the 2005 allegations. Pierce also described efforts to
reach students, as set forth below.54 Only one of the four students identified in the email agreed
to meet with us.55 She said no one from the Provost’s office (or any other University office)
contacted her about Philbert’s conduct during the 2010 Dean’s search.

7. President Coleman Receives a Summary of Allegations about Philbert

The following day, October 20, Hanlon sent an email about Philbert to then-President
Coleman, stating:

As I understand it, we’re going to try to touch base by phone later today. But I
wanted to give you a quick heads up about the topic.

Yesterday, the SPH search committee reported out and presented a slate of three
candidates. However one of them, UM’s own Martin Philbert, was the top choice
of all but one committee member and also heavily favored in feedback from the
SPH faculty, students, staff and other deans who interacted with the candidates.
So, Martin has emerged strongly as the top candidate in the search.

But there’s a possible complicated [sic] that I want to discuss with you. About
five years ago, there was a series of allegations that Martin made inappropriate
advances and/or had inappropriate relationship[s] with female staff and graduate
students working in his lab. The most serious of the allegations came in a report
from a faculty member who said that she had heard that Martin hugged and kissed
and suggested sex with three female graduate students in his lab. Anthony
Walesby investigated and the result was:

 the first student said that no, she was not directly involved. But had heard
the same things involving students she chose not to name.
 the second student refused to discuss the topic with Anthony.
 the third student would not respond to multiple efforts by Anthony to
contact her.

In the end, Anthony had no evidence apart from rumor and the matter was
resolved with the Dean having a frank discussion with Martin. A second issue

53
Hanlon’s response came after we reminded him that there had been outreach to students during the
Dean’s search.
54
See infra Section III(C)(8).
55
This is GS-1 who met E-1 in the hallway after Philbert kissed E-1’s neck, see supra Section III(B)(1),
and who is described in the summary prepared by Walesby of the 2005 allegations.

33
 involved litigation with a male staff member who had been let go due to loss of
funding in Martin’s lab. This male staff member alleged that Martin and the
female staff member were having an affair. Again, no evidence of an affair apart
[sic] or conflict of interest apart from speculation. The matter was settled out of
court. Both the lawsuit and Anthony’s investigation date back to the 2005
timeframe. The search committee was aware of these allegations and the
investigation but felt that was in the past and that Martin had learned his lesson.

I met with Anthony Walesby and Dave Masson yesterday to get the full report in
person. I wanted you to be aware of this and to discuss how to proceed. Talk to
you later today, or if we don’t connect, then when you’re back next week.

Coleman told us she did not remember receiving this email, nor did she recall learning about any
allegations about Philbert as part of the Dean’s search (or at any other time). Coleman thought
that Walesby was a thorough investigator, and she explained that she would have relied on the
judgment of Walesby and Hanlon, both of whom she trusted. She also acknowledged that she—
and perhaps others who may have received this information regarding Philbert—likely would not
have given it the same weight in 2010 as she would today.

Hanlon did not remember the specific email he sent to Coleman. However, he provided
written answers to two questions about pieces of it. We asked how to reconcile his statement to
the President that Walesby had investigated the allegations with Walesby’s summary of the same
events from nine days earlier: “It was determined that OIE would not conduct an investigation
and that Dean Warner would speak to Professor Philbert about this matter.” We also asked
Hanlon for the basis of his statement that “[Walesby] had no evidence apart from rumor[.]”
Hanlon explained that at the time of the alleged events—2004 to 2005—he was in a different
role at the University and was not part of the University’s response to the allegations. And he
wrote that it was apparent from the documents we had shown him (which are summarized
above)56 that the allegations “were taken seriously . . . There was an independent investigation by
Walesby . . . [who] concluded that no further investigation by OIE was necessary and that Dean
Warner would speak to Professor Philbert as follow up.” 57

Hanlon’s calendar showed that he spoke with Coleman by phone on October 21, but
neither remembers the phone call. When we asked about the purpose of contacting the President,
Hanlon wrote that with any decanal appointment, the Provost makes recommendations to the
Board of Regents. And the Provost would do so only with the support of the President.

56
See supra Section III(C)(5).
57
Hanlon also gave his synopsis of the documents. Because the central documents are reprinted here in
full, we do not recite Hanlon’s summary.

34
 8. Provost Hanlon and Pierce Collect Additional Information about
Philbert’s Conduct

By late October, Hanlon had narrowed the finalists to Philbert and one other candidate.
Philbert’s final interviews were held on October 29 and November 1. He met with Coleman,
Hanlon, Pierce, and other University leaders.

Both before and after Philbert’s final interviews, the Provost’s office collected additional
information about his conduct. A few days in advance of Philbert’s interviews, Hanlon made
reference calls to at least six SPH faculty and administrators. One call was with an SPH faculty
member who had been on the Search Committee; she told us she had no memory of Hanlon
asking about Philbert’s conduct toward women. Another call was with Dean Smith, an Associate
Dean in SPH who had not been on the Search Committee; he recalled Hanlon asking if he was
aware of any misconduct by Philbert. Smith recalled saying that he was aware of an allegation
several years earlier and that he was not aware of any subsequent allegations or issues. 58

Around the same time, Hanlon also requested that Pierce gather more information
regarding Philbert. According to Pierce, Hanlon asked her to talk to female graduate students
and faculty in SPH. She understood that the purpose of her inquiry was to assess whether SPH
students or faculty had concerns about Philbert. Hanlon told us these were “reference calls, not
investigations.” Pierce remembered speaking to several people and thought she likely would
have kept notes (though she was unable to find any such notes at the time of our interview).

The SPH Professor was among the women contacted by Pierce. Pierce sent her an email
on October 24 to arrange the meeting. The email said she was conducting a “routine reference
check . . . to hear your thoughts regarding your interactions with Professor Philbert and what you
see are his strengths and weaknesses.” According to the SPH Professor’s Notes, Walesby told
her that “several” anonymous comments about Philbert raised concerns about his interactions
with women, and Pierce wanted to discuss that with her.

Pierce met with the SPH Professor on November 8, 2010.59 According to the SPH
Professor’s Notes,60 Pierce focused on whether the SPH Professor had personal, first-hand
knowledge of misconduct by Philbert. The SPH Professor said that she did not (she had reported

58
Smith recalled learning of an allegation involving Philbert from someone in Student Services. He could
not recall the details of the allegation or when he had learned about the issue. He separately learned from
Warner about the 2005 allegations. In his conversation with Hanlon, Smith had assumed that the two
issues were the same. In our conversation, he acknowledged that they may have been two separate issues
but that he could not be sure.
59
That same day, November 8, Spencer Stuart received the results of its review of Philbert and sent them
to the Provost’s office. The review identified the Komorowski litigation but did not discuss the case in
any detail. There was no mention in the review of any allegations regarding Philbert’s conduct toward
women.
60
In this instance, the Notes are dated December 2, 2010. The Notes refer to the meeting three weeks
earlier, on November 8, 2010.

35
the accounts of two other women in 2005). The SPH Professor remembered—and her Notes also
reflect—Pierce saying that it “was highly unusual” that nothing had come of Walesby’s inquiries
into the SPH Professor’s report in 2005. The SPH Professor said she was unsettled by the
meeting.

Pierce told us she did not recall details of the meeting with the SPH Professor. But Pierce
remembered concluding that she had found nothing negative, and that the SPH Professor’s
account of Philbert’s conduct in 2005 was “strikingly different” from what she was told by
everyone else with whom she spoke. Pierce reported back to Hanlon accordingly.

Another staff member in the Provost’s office recalled the office “investigat[ing]” an
anonymous report about Philbert that Lantz brought forward. 61 by contacting people in SPH.
She did not know the issue under investigation, or who handled the investigation. She did recall
its outcome: The investigation went nowhere. The staff member recalled Hanlon saying after
the investigation that he would not act on an anonymous complaint.

9. Provost Hanlon Recommends Philbert as SPH Dean

Pierce did not know how the concerns about Philbert’s conduct were resolved. She
remembered Hanlon “laboring over” it—Philbert was a strong candidate, and, as she
remembered it, there was no conclusive evidence that he had engaged in misconduct, but the
issue created a “shroud of uncertainty.” Pierce remembered Hanlon saying that he planned to
have a “very clear discussion” with Philbert about the allegations that had surfaced in the search
process. She does not know if that ever took place, but she remarked that Hanlon was not
someone to say he would do something and then not do it.

Hanlon’s calendar shows him meeting with Philbert on November 19. Hanlon told us he
does not recall meeting with Philbert on that day or at any point around this time, and he does not
recall any conversation with Philbert about his conduct.

Hanlon recommended Philbert to become Dean of SPH. The appointment was

announced on November 29, 2010, and Philbert became SPH Dean on January 1, 2011.

D. 2011 to 2017: Dean of the School of Public Health

We interviewed more than 15 staff members who worked in the Dean’s office while
Philbert was Dean. The picture that emerges is of a leader with an informal, charismatic manner
who was known for his use of sexual innuendo. He made sexualized comments to and around a
number of SPH staff members—both men and women—and often insisted that female
employees give him hugs. Some staff members said his conduct made them so uncomfortable
that they modified their work routines, as described below. Other staff members described
Philbert as a supportive mentor.

61
We do not know whether this relates to the 2005 allegations, the survey comment, or something else.

36
 Philbert also entered into sexual relationships with at least three SPH employees while
serving as Dean.62 Two of the relationships continued after he became Provost.

1. Philbert Begins Pursuing Relationships with Female Staff in the SPH

Dean’s Office

In early 2012, Philbert met alone with a new staff member as part of an introduction to
the office. Philbert asked if the new staff member was married. She replied that she was not and
tried to re-direct the conversation, but Philbert returned to the topic of marriage. Ultimately, he
said, “I could hook you up but it would end badly,” which made the staff member
uncomfortable.

Later that semester, Philbert visited the staff member’s office suite and told everyone
present that he was “coming to get hugs.” When Philbert reached the staff member’s office,
which was not visible to the rest of the staff in the suite, he gave her a hug, slid his hands down
her back, and touched her buttocks (over her clothing). She described the incident as “very
unsettling and uncomfortable.”

During that same semester, Philbert also began to direct attention toward another staff
member (hereinafter “E-2”). E-2 stated that Philbert had previously focused on another woman
in the office. E-2 said this was Philbert’s approach: to focus special attention on a woman in the
office, and then to move on to another.

E-2 described a “gradual” build up in Philbert’s attention. It began with him spending
time in her office to talk and eventually moved to him making comments about her appearance,
looking her “up and down” in a way that made her uncomfortable, and giving her frequent
hugs.63 Philbert occasionally invited E-2 to lunch, and, when he did so, E-2 asked another staff
member (hereinafter “E-3”) to join them because she did not want to be alone with Philbert.

In early 2013, Philbert sent E-2 a social media message stating that she was “stunning.”
E-2 told us that, around the same time, Philbert gave her a full body hug, “chest to chest,” that
lasted 30 to 45 seconds. She moved to pull back, but he kept her in his embrace. E-2 told us she
kept her hands at her sides and looked out her office door, waiting for Philbert to stop.

E-2 began making efforts to avoid being alone with Philbert. She told us she took
“evasive measures” when Philbert was around—going to a colleague’s office and talking about
work, pretending she was on the phone, and the like. She never told him to stop his behavior,
but he eventually stopped trying to interact with her in this way and turned his attention to E-3.

62
Philbert’s University-owned devices contained evidence indicating that he engaged in sexual
relationships with additional women during his time as SPH Dean. We investigated whether the women
were University students or employees. Because they appear not to be, they were outside the scope of our
investigation.
63
Later in 2012, E-2 was promoted within the Dean’s office.

37
 2. Philbert Initiates a Sexual Relationship with E-3

Philbert began taking an interest in another staff member in the Dean’s office, E-3, in the
fall of 2012, when he learned that she was going through a difficult personal situation. Philbert
gave E-3 his cell phone number and, throughout the fall and winter, he sent her text messages.
The relationship and texts grew increasingly personal over time. Philbert began making
comments about E-3’s physical appearance and, by E-3’s account, he “blur[red]” the lines
between professional and personal. Philbert told her, “you’re beautiful,” “I would treat you like
a queen,” and “if I was with you, I would never let you go.” 64 E-3 described feeling ambivalent
about the relationship, both comforted by it and concerned about the appropriateness of her
interactions with Philbert.

In the spring of 2013, Philbert and E-3 met in Philbert’s office in connection with a
University activity and they kissed for the first time. They both expressed feelings for each other
when this happened. After that first encounter, they began texting more frequently. The texts
included descriptions of sexual acts. Within a month, they began a sexual relationship. During
the ensuing relationship, Philbert and E-3 had sexual contact in University offices on numerous
occasions and on University business trips. Philbert also saved intimate photographs of E-3 on
his University-owned devices.65

In the summer of 2013, Philbert emailed E-3 that he was concerned his wife was growing
suspicious of his texting. The next month, he and E-3 began communicating on the encrypted
message application WhatsApp.

E-3 said her relationship with Philbert was most active and intense in the summer of
2013. That same summer and fall, E-3 applied and was selected for a more senior position in the
Dean’s office. University officials involved in the application and hiring process remembered
Philbert advocating for E-3 generally and supporting her in the selection process that resulted in
her promotion but not directly instructing that she be hired. 66 E-3’s supervisor, an associate dean
who was the ultimate decision-maker on her promotion, reported directly to Philbert.

Philbert’s relationship with E-3 continued off and on through most of 2014. In
November 2014 Philbert told E-3 he wanted to end the relationship and for them to remain
friends; E-3 agreed.

E-3 found her work environment more “difficult” after her relationship with Philbert
ended. Seeing Philbert at work made her anxious, and she felt that Philbert treated her more

64
During the same period (late 2012) Philbert was sending sexually explicit texts to a former SPH student
who graduated from SPH a few years earlier. The former student declined our request to meet. The texts
and emails suggest they may have been in a sexual relationship.
65
In 2014, Philbert received a sexually suggestive photograph from a former SPH student who graduated
in 2009. Texts between Philbert and this former student suggest that they may have had a sexual
relationship.
66
E-3’s supervisor believed that E-3 was the strongest candidate for the position.

38
coldly and was more inclined to question her professional decisions. E-3 said Philbert never
explicitly connected the state of their relationship and his actions at work, but she nevertheless
felt as though she was being professionally “punished” by him.

In 2015, Philbert attempted to initiate sexual contact with E-3 in University offices on
three or four separate occasions. E-3 rebuffed him. She told us that Philbert gave her hugs and
then put his hands on her buttocks, up her shirt, or down her pants. The contact, which she
regarded as non-consensual, would stop when she said no. In November, E-3 decided she would
leave the University and, at that point, became more comfortable resisting Philbert’s advances.
She did not allow him to get physically close to her; “no” became “hell no,” and Philbert’s hands
never went underneath her clothes.

E-3 did not report Philbert’s conduct to the University when it was happening. She told
us she believed that, if she did so, Philbert would “throw [her] under the bus and [she] would
suffer more consequences.” E-3 described it as a different time—calling it “pre-Me too”—and
she thought reporting Philbert would not work out in her favor. Years later, in the spring of
2018, Philbert texted E-3 to say that she was on his mind. In the text conversation that followed,
she asked, “Were you ever worried during all the me too news that I would publicly talk about
our relationship?” Philbert responded, “Never. I trusted you implicitly.” E-3 asked him to meet
her for lunch that spring, and during that lunch she told Philbert that he had used his position of
power inappropriately in their relationship. She said Philbert disagreed, telling her that it had
been true love.

3. The Provost’s Office, OIE, OGC, and the Registrar Receive Information
about Allegations of Misconduct by Philbert from 2005

Meanwhile, in the fall of 2012, E-1, who had told the SPH Professor about misconduct by
Philbert in 2005, re-enrolled in SPH.67 E-1 described feeling “constantly paranoid” that she
would run into Philbert at SPH that fall.

In the spring of 2013, E-1 felt overcome by anxiety and decided to withdraw from her
classes. She never saw Philbert, but she said the possibility that she would was a constant
concern. E-1 met with representatives from the University’s Sexual Assault Prevention and
Awareness Center (“SAPAC”), one of whom helped her prepare petitions requesting a tuition
refund and removal of a “withdrawal” notation from her transcript.

On March 13, 2013, a Program Manager for SAPAC emailed an OIE investigator to
explain that “[E-1] has been facing anxiety, fear, and panic attacks when she is back in the
building—in fear that she will run into [Philbert].” The OIE Investigator forwarded this email to
Walesby, and explained that E-1 was asking to withdraw from classes because she was “sexually
harassed (culminating in a kiss on the neck) by a faculty member a few years ago.” Walesby had
received the SPH Professor’s report about Philbert and E-1 in 2005. See supra Section III(B)(3).

67
As discussed above, E-1 left the University in 2007. Her allegations from 2005 were considered in
connection with Philbert’s candidacy for the SPH deanship in 2010. See supra Sections III(B)(1);
III(C)(5).

39
 On March 15, 2013, E-1 met with Walesby and the Assistant Dean of Students about her
tuition refund and transcript change petitions. During the meeting, Walesby asked E-1 for
additional details about Philbert’s conduct that she did not feel comfortable sharing. Walesby
told us he had no memory of the meeting.

After the meeting, Walesby sent the summary of E-1’s (and Mary Roe’s) 2005
allegations prepared by Walesby in 2010, see supra Section ____, to Provost Hanlon, Vice
Provost Martha Pollack (who had already been selected to succeed Hanlon as Provost), a senior
official from the Provost’s office,68 Christine Gerdes (an attorney from OGC), and Frumkin (the
Academic HR official involved with Komorowski’s termination in 2003 and the 2005
allegations). The officials on that email also received the following facts from Walesby:

 Walesby met with E-1 about petitions for tuition reimbursement and the removal
of a withdrawal notation from her transcript;

 E-1 based the petitions on health issues she connected to being back in SPH
following the alleged sexual harassment by Philbert she experienced in 2005;

 Walesby told E-1 that retaliation is prohibited by University policy and that he
would like the opportunity to learn more about E-1’s specific concerns;

 E-1 refused to provide specific information about any alleged misconduct by

Philbert;

 Walesby talked to Hanlon about the issue after he met with E-1; and

 Walesby said that there were no specific allegations to move forward on.

Pollack, the incoming Provost, responded to Walesby’s email, agreeing to speak about the issue
by phone.69

On March 21, 2013, E-1 emailed Walesby to ask him to submit a statement indicating
that she had previously reported Philbert for sexual harassment and that the case was
“documented and under investigation.” On March 22, Walesby, after conferring with other
University officials, responded in part:

I haven’t written such a letter in the past and I’m not sure I see my role in this
matter at this point. There may be a misunderstanding, and if that’s so, I
apologize. I understood from our last meeting that you continue to not wish to
68
This official was copied by mistake and the email should have copied Pierce who was included on later
emails on the same topic.
69
Pollack told us she had no memory of that discussion or E-1’s allegations. Walesby told us he had no
memory of speaking to Pollack, or to Hanlon. Hanlon told us he does not recall the email, the fact or
substance of E-1’s inquiry or having any role in responding to it. No one else with whom we spoke in
OGC or the Provost’s office recalled this episode.

40
 share any specific allegations regarding the person you reported having
interaction with in 2005. As we discussed, I encouraged you to provide
information so that the University can conduct a review and make a determination
regarding this matter. . . . You indicated in your email below that an investigation
is underway, so I wasn’t sure if there’s a misunderstanding. At this point, other
than efforts we made in 2005, we are unable to move forward with an
investigation based on the lack of specific allegations.

E-1 wrote to the SAPAC Program Manager after receiving Walesby’s email, expressing
her frustration that Walesby had declined her request and that he had asked for additional
information about her allegations that she had “made clear [she was] not comfortable sharing.”
On March 28, 2013, E-1 separately emailed the University’s Ombuds office, which she had
previously contacted for assistance with her petition, and wrote of her March 15 meeting with
Walesby:

At that meeting I told [Walesby] what I had heard from a former Ph.D. student
familiar70 with this faulty [sic] and his sexual harassing behavior with me and
other students. She told me about his sexual harassment behavior towards other
students in the past few years (people there after I left). I [sic] [Walesby] this
information because he was pressuring me to give him details and I felt like I
needed to tell him something. By telling him this information, I felt safe that if he
confronted the professor regarding it the professor would not link it back to me.
[Walesby] said that what he would do is take that information to the provost that
oversees the Deans and they would decide from there how to proceed.

E-1 submitted petitions to the Registrar’s office and the Dean of Students’ office on
March 22, 2013. She included letters of support from SAPAC, her psychologist, and the faculty
member who taught the course from which she was withdrawing. On March 27, 2013, the
Literature, Science, and the Arts Standards Board granted E-1’s petition to expunge the
“withdrawal” notation from her transcript.

The Registrar’s office initially denied E-1’s petition for a tuition refund. E-1 informed
the Registrar’s office that she intended to submit her petition for reconsideration, copying
Walesby, the University’s Ombuds office, and the Assistant Dean of Students. Walesby
forwarded E-1’s email to several University officials and wrote, “Just fyi—this relates to the
2005 matter involving Martin Philbert. I sent an earlier email about this and spoke directly to
Phil [Hanlon] and Martha [Pollack] about the matter. The student is focused on a tuition
reimbursement for a course taken now.”

On April 17, 2013, Walesby sent Pierce an email in which he raised the possibility of
informing Philbert of E-1’s petitions.71 Pierce replied by email, indicating that she had spoken
with Hanlon earlier that day. “Like me, he was immediately concerned of possible retaliation if

70
There is no indication that E-1 shared the name of this student or any details about the student’s
experience.
71
Pierce did not recall E-1’s 2013 petitions.

41
the dean knew. In the end, he said he didn’t have strong feelings one way or the other since she
had not filed a complaint. If she did, then obviously [Philbert] should be informed.”

Contemporaneous emails show that Walesby met with Philbert on April 25, 2013 and
informed him both about E-1’s petitions and the allegations raised in 2005. Walesby did not
reveal E-1’s identity during this conversation. He informed Philbert that the transcript petition
would be addressed by an official other than Philbert.

Philbert acknowledged to Walesby that he talked to Warner about the allegations in 2005.
Walesby remembered deciding at the time to take the opportunity to ask Philbert about the
allegations. He asked Philbert five questions, including whether Philbert had ever kissed a
student or made comments about “chocolate syrup sex.” Philbert said he had not.

On April 26, 2013, the Registrar’s office granted E-1’s petition for a tuition refund. The
notification included a statement that the Registrar was “expressing no opinion with respect to
the merits of the claims” contained in the petition.

4. Philbert Enters into Sexual Relationships with Additional SPH Employees

In 2013, while still in a sexual relationship with E-3, Philbert was also in a sexual
relationship with another SPH employee (hereinafter “E-4”). E-4 did not acknowledge the
sexual relationship with Philbert during our interview of her. However, Philbert’s text messages
on University-owned devices contain discussions of their in-person sexual activity, explicit
exchanges about sex acts, and intimate photos of her.

Philbert and E-4 were exchanging sexually explicit text messages by October 2013. They
also engaged in sexually explicit FaceTime sessions, which Philbert “screen captured” and saved
on his University-owned devices. The text messages and FaceTime screen captures show that
the relationship ran through at least October 2014, and then again from April 2015 through May
2018. Electronic messages between Philbert and E-4 frequently refer to them engaging in sexual
activity in University offices.

While he was in a sexual relationship with E-4, Philbert entered into a sexual relationship
with another SPH employee (hereinafter “E-5”). E-5 also did not acknowledge the existence of
the relationship to us. However, as with the other relationship, Philbert’s University-owned
devices contain text messages with discussions of their in-person sexual activity, explicit
exchanges about sex acts, and intimate photos of her.

The sexually explicit text exchanges with E-5 began in 2017. At some point in 2016,
Philbert played an active role in creating a position for the employee when her prior job was not
working out. The texts messages show the relationship was on and off through at least 2018.

5. Philbert Initiates Sexualized Communications with E-6

Philbert’s relationship with another SPH employee (hereinafter “E-6”) changed in 2016.
The two became friends in the course of working together. E-6 said that in or around 2016
Philbert became “flirtatious” in ways that “did not seem normal for a boss.” He began to text E-
6 frequently and make more sexually suggestive comments, including about E-6’s physical

42
appearance and a hypothetical sexual relationship. E-6 redirected such conversations with
Philbert without explicitly asking him to stop.

A dispute between Philbert and E-6 at work further changed their relationship. E-6
described leaving the office one day as a result of the dispute, unsure of whether she wanted to
continue working at SPH. E-6 told us that Philbert called her and sent her texts incessantly that
afternoon. When they spoke by phone that evening, E-6 wondered aloud whether she could
continue working at SPH. E-6 said Philbert responded with words to the effect of, “The problem
with you is that I have to try so hard not to like you so much.” E-6 said the comment marked a
turning point in their relationship—things changed and Philbert became increasingly friendly.
As described below, infra Section III(F)(3), Philbert and E-6 entered into a relationship in 2017
after Philbert was selected Provost; it became a sexual relationship in 2018.

The change in Philbert’s relationship with E-6 coincided with changes in his relationship
with another SPH employee (hereinafter “E-7”). E-7 told us that Philbert “very quickly” noticed
when she stopped wearing her wedding ring in 2016. He began visiting her office, closing the
door, and asking whether she was okay. E-7 told us there was an undercurrent to Philbert’s
comments and questions that suggested sexual interest. Philbert made comments to her such as
“If I wasn’t married, I would really go after you”; “In a different situation, I would want to go
out with you”; and “I want to take you wherever I go.” 72 As described below, infra Section
III(F)(1), these interactions continued after Philbert became Provost.

E. 2017: Selection as Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic

Affairs

In November 2016, then-Provost Martha Pollack was named President of Cornell

University. She stepped down as University of Michigan Provost at the end of January 2017,
and Paul Courant began serving as the interim Provost. From January to June 2017, the
University ran a search process for a new Provost. On June 15, 2017, the University announced
Philbert’s selection, effective September 1, 2017.

1. President Schlissel Establishes and Chairs the Provost Search Advisory

Committee

President Mark Schlissel chaired the 2017 Provost’s Search Advisory Committee
(“Provost Search Committee”) and attended each of the Committee’s meetings. President
Schlissel did not routinely participate to this extent in University selection processes, but he
wanted to signal how seriously he took the selection of the next Provost. The President’s Special
Counsel, Liz Barry, served as staff to the Provost Search Committee.

The Provost Search Committee had eleven members, including President Schlissel. Vice
Provost Pierce was a member of the committee, along with officials from schools across the

72
Another SPH employee also experienced suggestive comments from Philbert during this same period.
Philbert commented about her physical appearance and said that he wanted to bring her with him to his
future jobs. The employee told us the comments were “weird and off-putting.”

43
University and one student representative. The student representative was a Master’s student at
SPH; he was the only Committee member affiliated with SPH.

An external search firm, Korn Ferry, assisted the Provost Search Committee by
contacting potential candidates, reviewing application materials, and performing reference
checks.

2. President Schlissel Solicits and Receives Input from Former-Provost

Hanlon

The first meeting of the Provost Search Committee was on January 26, 2017.

On February 21, 2017, President Schlissel emailed former Provost Hanlon to ask for his
help in identifying candidates. Hanlon replied, “[T]wo people come to mind right away. One is
Martin Philbert. Admittedly I am at a distance from UM these days, but I still hear great things
about Martin’s leadership of Public Health.” Hanlon told us he had heard about the success of
SPH under Philbert’s leadership from former-Provost Pollack and indirectly through SPH
faculty. Hanlon thereby explained the basis for his recommendation, but did not respond to our
specific question about whether he considered “referring to information about Dr. Philbert
learned in 2010 or 2013.”73 President Schlissel replied to Hanlon’s email saying, “Martin P is
top of list of the internal candidates. I share your high opinion of him.” Later that same day,
Philbert sent Korn Ferry his official letter of interest in the Provost position.

President Schlissel did not know Philbert before coming to the University in 2014. In
late 2014, then-Provost Pollack reviewed Philbert’s work performance and renewed his
deanship. President Schlissel read a summary of the review at the time; it contained no
information about Philbert’s conduct towards female staff members or students. 74 Between then
and Philbert’s expression of interest in the Provost position in 2017, President Schlissel’s
contacts with Philbert were limited to occasional University-related interactions. They were not
personal friends.

3. Philbert is Selected to Participate in Interviews

In early March, the Provost Search Committee reviewed applications from 41 candidates.
The Provost Search Committee discussed Philbert’s candidacy at this stage, but the conversation
was not in-depth; it was assumed that Philbert would advance to the interview stage. Committee
members regarded Philbert as a strong candidate, and he was seen as the internal candidate who
had the most support from other University deans.

73
See supra Sections III(C)(5); III(D)(3).
74
We also reviewed the confidential feedback on Philbert that was collected and considered at this stage;
it does not include any information about Philbert’s conduct towards women.

44
 The Provost Search Committee ultimately selected Philbert and nine other candidates to
participate in first-round interviews. After the first round of interviews, the Committee invited a
smaller pool of candidates, including Philbert, to participate in a second round.

The Committee considered the candidates’ academic and executive experience, their
interviews, and Korn Ferry’s background research on their academic credentials. The process
did not include requests for reports or allegations of prior misconduct. It also did not include a
public campus visit or anonymous campus survey feedback, such as that collected in the 2010
Dean’s search.75 None of the Committee members recalled receiving any information (written or
oral) about Philbert’s past conduct toward women during the search process. We looked for such
information in every Committee member’s email and in the materials assembled by the
Committee about Philbert’s candidacy. We found none.

Pierce had been aware of allegations of misconduct by Philbert dating back to 2005,
including when the allegations came to light again in 2010 and 2013. We asked Pierce whether
she considered raising with the Committee information about such allegations. 76 She did not
recall any request for or inquiry into allegations of Philbert’s prior misconduct in the course of
the Committee’s work, and she said she “did not think about it.” She stressed that no allegations
had been corroborated in those prior inquiries. By her memory, “there had been no evidence to
support” the allegations and it was not an established data point, “so it was just gone from [her]
mind.77

4. Philbert is Selected as a Finalist and Later, as Provost

In mid-April, the Provost Search Committee selected three finalists—two outside

candidates and Philbert. The selection of finalists completed the Provost Search Committee’s
work. It was up to President Schlissel to decide which finalist to recommend to the Regents.

Each of the three finalists was interviewed over the course of two days by President
Schlissel and a group of Regents, Executive Officers, Deans, and other University officials.
Philbert met with the President and other University leaders at the President’s residence on May
8 and 9.

In addition to soliciting input from those who interviewed the finalists, President
Schlissel also called references—both those provided by the candidates and others President
Schlissel believed might have a valuable perspective.

Philbert submitted as references three former University officials—former President

Mary Sue Coleman, former Provost Philip Hanlon, and former Provost Martha Pollack—and two
external references. Korn Ferry contacted candidates’ references and compiled the feedback for

75
See supra Section III(C)(4).
76
See supra Sections III(B)(4); III(C)(8); III(D)(3).
77
We reviewed the entirety of Pierce’s available email for references to Philbert and potential
misconduct; we found no references after 2013.

45
the President. Both former-Provost Hanlon and former-Provost Pollack provided positive
feedback on Philbert. The written summary of that feedback prepared by Korn Ferry makes no
reference to Philbert’s conduct toward women. 78 Hanlon could not recall his conversation with
Korn Ferry, but he told us he answered all questions he was asked truthfully and completely.

President Schlissel did not recall whom he called about Philbert, but he thinks he spoke to
former-Provost Pollack, former-President Coleman, former-Provost Hanlon, an Associate Dean
in SPH, and one or two sitting deans. All of the feedback President Schlissel received about
Philbert was strong and positive; President Schlissel does not recall hearing anything about
Philbert’s conduct toward women.

On June 7, 2017, President Schlissel recommend Philbert for the position of Provost to
the Board of Regents. On June 15, the Board of Regents approved the recommendation, and
Philbert’s selection was announced later that day, effective September 1, 2017.

5. President Schlissel Learns of the Komorowski Litigation

Sometime after the June 15 announcement, President Schlissel learned of the 2003
litigation brought by the former lab worker, Tom Komorowski. 79 As discussed in Section
III(A)(2), supra, Komorowski alleged that he was wrongfully terminated based on his age and
sex. He also claimed that Philbert terminated him so that he could retain a female lab employee
with whom Komorowski alleged Philbert had a close personal relationship. The complaint did
not make any allegations regarding Philbert’s relationship with the female lab employee,
deposition testimony did not establish that there had been an intimate or sexual relationship
between them, and the case was settled in November 2005.

President Schlissel recalled learning about the case over lunch with someone who was
then a member of the Board of Regents in the summer of 2017. The Regent told the President he
learned Philbert had been involved in some kind of sexual misconduct lawsuit, but he did not
know any details (including the plaintiff’s name). The Regent learned the information from a
colleague who had apparently seen news of Philbert’s appointment as Provost. President
Schlissel could not recall the date of the lunch with the Regent, and we were unable to determine
the date from available calendar and email records. 80 President Schlissel told us that, until then,

78
We found no evidence that the third internal reference from the University, former President Mary Sue
Coleman, provided any feedback to Korn Ferry. Philbert’s references who were not affiliated with the
University submitted positive recommendations; neither referred to any alleged misconduct.
79
See supra Section III(E)(5).
80
We reviewed President Schlissel’s calendar and found only two entries for that Regent: a lunch on June
7, 2017, a week before the public announcement; and a breakfast in October 2017, more than a month
after Philbert started working as Provost. We also reviewed every email between the President, the
Regent, and the General Counsel for the period June 1 to September 5. None contained the date when
President Schlissel first learned the information from the Regent.

46
he had never heard of any such lawsuit. (The first references to Tom Komorowski in the
President’s email appear on September 5, 2017.)

President Schlissel asked Timothy Lynch, the University’s General Counsel, to gather
more information about the lawsuit right after his lunch with the Regent. On August 29, 2017,
OGC requested from the University’s Bentley Library 81 the full file associated with the
Komorowski litigation. Lynch also received materials from Masson, the OGC attorney who was
familiar with the litigation. The next day, August 30, Masson asked an attorney in the law firm
that had represented to University in the litigation to review the firm’s file. Lynch and the
outside lawyer spoke the following day.

President Schlissel told us that he learned the following facts about the litigation at the
time:

 In his deposition, Komorowski was unable to provide any evidence confirming the
existence of an intimate relationship between Philbert and the female lab employee;

 Komorowski testified that he never saw Philbert and the female employee together
outside the University and never personally observed any behavior between them that
he considered inappropriate;

 Komorowski had alleged that a coworker would support his claim that Philbert and
the female employee had been in an intimate relationship. But the coworker testified
that he did not believe the female employee and Philbert had had an intimate
relationship.

 Then-Provost Hanlon was aware of the matter before selecting Philbert as SPH Dean.

President Schlissel did not recall if he learned other facts, but he believes he may have
seen deposition transcripts which he concluded did not corroborate Komorowski’s allegation that
Philbert had a relationship with the lab employee. Based on the information provided to him,
President Schlissel did not believe there was a reason to reverse the decision to appoint Philbert
as Provost.

F. September 2017 to March 2020: Provost and Executive Vice President for
Academic Affairs

On September 1, 2017, Philbert moved out of the SPH Dean’s office and began working
as Provost. As was typical for senior University officials after such a promotion, he retained an
office in his former school (in Philbert’s case, in SPH).

Philbert’s sexual relationships with two SPH employees, E-4 and E-5, continued after he
became Provost. Because Philbert encrypted his WhatsApp communications with both women

81
Bentley Library houses historical records for the University.

47
at various points in their relationships, we do not know how long either relationship lasted.
Based on the record available to us, the relationships continued through at least 2018.

Philbert entered into sexual relationships with at least three additional University
employees after he became Provost. For most of his time as Provost, Philbert was in
simultaneous sexual relationships with two or three University employees. 82

1. E-7 Discusses Philbert with President’s Office

Philbert encouraged several female staff members from the SPH Dean’s office to
consider moving with him to the Provost’s office.

One of the SPH staff members, E-783, told us about her conversations with Philbert
during his recruitment efforts in the fall of 2017. E-7 said Philbert continued to make sexually
suggestive comments to her (e.g., “If you weren’t married…”) that made her uncomfortable. He
also periodically sent her text messages saying that he was thinking about her.

E-7 applied for the job in the Provost’s office for which Philbert had encouraged her to
apply. At some point in the process, she met for coffee with Liz Barry, the Special Counsel to
the University President, for advice about the position she was pursuing. She had known Barry
for some years. During their meeting, E-7 expressed some hesitation about working for Philbert
but did not provide much detail. E-7 told us that she “insinuated something around Me Too” and
may have added, “he needs to be careful that people do not perceive what he says as
inappropriate.”

Barry also described the conversation to us. According to her, E-7 said that Philbert had
“issues with women,” that part of her job would be to “coach” him on his interactions with
women, and that a current SPH employee may have been working with him on these issues
already. Barry told us that she understood the comments to refer to Philbert’s management style,
particularly in view of the reference to “coaching,” which was not a term Barry associated with
addressing sexual misconduct. Barry found nothing concerning about the conversation; rather,
E-7 appeared enthusiastic about the prospect of working with Philbert. 84

82
Philbert’s University-owned devices contained evidence indicating that he engaged in sexual
relationships with additional women during his transition to or time as Provost. We investigated whether
the women were University students or employees. Because they appear not to be, they were outside the
scope of our investigation.
83
See supra Section III(F)(1).
84
E-7 later spoke to other witnesses about her interactions with Philbert and her meeting with Barry.
Based on other witnesses, we concluded that a sentence from the anonymous letter to President Schlissel
in January 2020, see infra Section III(F)(8), likely referred to this meeting: “It is our understanding the
president’s office was previously warned about this predator and did nothing to investigate or stop him.”

48
 Barry did not make any record of the conversation with E-7, nor did she share the
information with anyone else.85 Philbert ultimately selected someone else for the position in the
Provost’s office. 86

2. An SPH Faculty Member Receives Information about Philbert’s

Statements

In a casual conversation in January 2018, E-7 mentioned her vacation tan to Philbert. E-7
recalled Philbert saying, “I’m not interested in where you’re tan. I’m interested in where you’re
not tanned.” (As discussed below, another female Provost office employee told us Philbert said
something similar to her.)

Months later, E-7 told an SPH faculty member about Philbert’s behavior. E-7 told us she
recalled describing a general feeling of sexual harassment without providing any details, saying
things such as, “there is stuff happening that I really need to tell you about.” She recalled being
in tears when she told the faculty member, “I can’t tell you [Philbert’s] exact comments because
of your role.” Based on the faculty member’s former leadership role, E-7 assumed the faculty
member would have to report Philbert’s behavior if she provided specifics, and she did not want
to put her in that position. Without providing names, she also told the faculty member that other
women had experienced similar conduct.

The SPH faculty member told us that E-7 was “very, very upset” after having a
“particularly yucky” interaction with Philbert that included him saying something about wanting
to see where she was not tan. The faculty member had worked with Philbert for years and knew
him to use sexual innuendo and to be “always a bit inappropriate.” The faculty member said the
conduct that E-7 described was “within the range of Philbert’s interactions,” but that something
in the nature of the comments was clearly upsetting to E-7 and different from Philbert’s typical
comments. The faculty member, likely based on her former leadership role, believed that she
was required to report suspected harassment. She recalled telling E-7 that if E-7 provided more
information, she might be required to report the information, and then describing the
University’s reporting channels for sexual harassment. The faculty member remembered E-7
saying she could not report to OIE because Philbert was the Provost and she could not afford to
lose her job.

The faculty member told us that the conduct E-7 described was in a “gray area” and not
far enough “over the line”—it was not a relationship, it was not sex, and there was no physical
contact. Instead, she considered it “a bad phrase used in a vulnerable situation.”

85
In addition to interviewing both E-7 and Barry, we reviewed all email correspondence between them
for the period from September 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018. We found no references to any sexual
misconduct or other improper behavior by Philbert.
86
After Philbert left SPH, E-7’s SPH program was cut, and she later left SPH unhappily. She told us she
felt that Philbert had harmed her professionally. According to another SPH faculty member, in early
2019, E-7 said that she was angry at Philbert in connection with a professional disagreement and had a
plan to “take [him] down.”

49
 3. Philbert Initiates a Sexual Relationship with E-6

Philbert’s promotion to Provost affected his relationship with E-6. 87 E-6 had had a
working relationship with Philbert in SPH in which Philbert became “flirtatious.” She said the
flirtation increased over time, particularly while Philbert was applying for the Provost position in
2017.

After Philbert was announced as the next Provost in June 2017, E-6 told us that he shifted
to a “full court press” with comments such as that he and E-6 could have “beautiful coffee-
colored babies” together; that he wanted to see her tan lines; that he was “aching” for [her]; and
others. E-6 began to respond in kind to Philbert’s flirtations, and she and Philbert discussed the
possibility of a relationship.

One evening in late November 2017, Philbert asked E-6 to meet him in his SPH office,
explaining that he had something for her. When she arrived, Philbert closed the door and tried to
turn the lights off. E-6 insisted the lights remain on. Philbert then approached E-6 forcefully,
kissed her, and pressed his body against hers. He tried to remove her shirt, which she stopped,
and they continued to kiss. E-6 was attracted to Philbert but was “shocked” by the interaction—
she had not expected a physical encounter and told us that it felt “aggressive.” When she left
Philbert’s office, E-6 worried that passers-by could have seen them through the second-floor
office’s large windows.

The next month, Philbert asked that his SPH office be moved from the second to the sixth
floor. The SPH Facilities Director confirmed the request by text to Philbert, and Philbert
responded, “So I can sneak in and out / It’d be helpful. But a quiet one.” The move was
completed within a week and the lock was rekeyed. The work order indicated that the new key
would be one “that not only the region does not have, but after-hours maintenance personnel
would not have either.” This had the effect of taking the office off the submaster key that senior
SPH personnel used to access spaces in the building. 88

After their first physical encounter, E-6 told Philbert that they needed to stop because
they were endangering their careers. Philbert insisted that it was true love. The relationship
continued. By January 2018, they were exchanging sexually explicit text communications
almost daily; shortly thereafter, they began a sexual relationship. Their sexual relationship
continued through September 2019, during which time they had sexual relations in University
offices, in Philbert’s house, and at nearby hotels.

Once they began a sexual relationship, Philbert asked E-6 to move their communications
to Signal, an encrypted text application with an auto-delete function. E-6 described using Signal
to exchange sexually explicit messages and images, which Philbert initially pressed her to
provide. The two also exchanged similar material by regular SMS text, which we recovered
from University-owned devices used by Philbert. Evidence we analyzed shows that some

87
See supra Section III(F)(5).
88
The Facilities Director told us that Philbert did not request the key change; rather, he said he made the
change himself after discovering a custodian sleeping in the office before Philbert took it over.

50
sexually explicit images were taken in the Fleming Building, which is the location of the
Provost’s office.

Not long after Philbert’s sexual relationship with E-6 began, in mid-2018, E-7 asked E-6
if Philbert had ever “crossed the line” with E-6. E-7 was not aware that E-6 was in a relationship
with Philbert at that time, and E-6 did not disclose it to her. E-6 remembers that E-7 recounted
that Philbert told her he wanted to see “the bits below her tan lines.”

E-6 asked E-7 whether Philbert had engaged in any other conduct and whether she felt
professionally disadvantaged by Philbert’s conduct. In the course of their conversation, E-7
mentioned that she had met with Barry, the President’s Special Counsel, see supra Section
III(F)(1). E-6 concluded that she need not report the information to OIE or take further steps
because E-7 did not feel professionally disadvantaged by Philbert’s comments, and because E-6
assumed that the President’s office was aware of the comments. 89

4. Philbert Tries to Initiate a Relationship with E-8

As Philbert and E-6 were entering into a sexual relationship in the spring of 2018,
Philbert was also pursuing relationships with personnel in the Provost’s office.

Philbert and a staff member in the Provost’s office (hereinafter “E-8”) were friends early
in his time as Provost. Over time, however, E-8 felt that Philbert’s behavior became increasingly
“odd.” She noted that he adjusted his morning schedule so that he arrived earlier, in time to meet
E-8 for coffee, and that he hugged her more frequently. Other staff told us they took notice of
this behavior. Philbert then began commenting on E-8’s physical appearance. Philbert also
began sending frequent and informal text messages and photos of himself to E-8, including after
business hours.

E-8 grew concerned that personnel in the Provost’s office thought she was going around
them to interact with Philbert. Around May or June 2018, she asked Philbert to stop giving her
as much attention because it was damaging her professional reputation. Philbert reassured her
that he would protect her professionally, but he did not change his behavior. E-8 told us that she
began avoiding Philbert, including by eating lunch early, closing her office door when she heard
his voice, and ignoring his text and chat messages.

In August or September 2018, Philbert announced to E-8 that he was traveling to Los
Angeles on University business and asked her to join him. She declined. Several weeks later,
Philbert told E-8 that people in the office thought she was his girlfriend. The comment made E-8
uncomfortable, and she asked Philbert to make sure there was no uncertainty on that topic in the
office—that she was not his girlfriend. E-8 described the comment to E-6, whom she considered
her friend; but E-8 did not know, and E-6 did not disclose to her, that she was in a sexual
relationship with Philbert at the time. E-6 began avoiding discussions about Philbert with E-8 so
as not to reveal their relationship.

89
As noted above, the conversation between E-7 and Barry may be referenced in the anonymous letter
sent to the President in January 2020. See infra Section III(F)(8).

51
 The following spring, in April 2019, E-8 went on vacation with her family and sent a
photo (that she was not in) to Philbert. He responded by text, as follows: “I DO note – not a
photo of you!!!” He later said to her in person, “I wanted to see your tan lines.” E-8 had
previously heard from E-6 that Philbert had made this request of E-7, as described above.

In July 2019, Philbert exchanged text messages about E-8 and other female Provost’s
office staff with a staff member in the office. 90 The text messages repeatedly refer to the
physical appearance of female staff members. Among other things, Philbert asked the staff
member to take and send photos of E-8 so that Philbert could look at them while he was out of
the office. The staff member took at least two such photos and sent them to Philbert.

Later that summer, E-8 received a text from Philbert reading, “You’re on my mind.” She
confided in E-6 again about Philbert’s conduct. E-6 remembered reading the message and
realizing that Philbert had sent her an identical one—“you’re on my mind”—at the same time.
Soon thereafter, by September 2019, E-6’s sexual relationship with Philbert ended.

5. Philbert Initiates a Sexual Relationship with E-9

Philbert also developed a friendship with another staff member in the Provost’s office
(hereinafter “E-9”) soon after becoming Provost.

In the spring of 2018, Philbert began interacting more with E-9 and asking her about
personal topics. She believed this was an effort to make her see him as a friend rather than as a
boss. They began exchanging jokes and photos over text and eventually progressed to more
personal messages. In July 2018, while Philbert was away on vacation, he texted E-9 that he
missed her. The following month, while E-9 was away on vacation, Philbert again texted that he
missed her. Later that summer, when they were both back in the office, Philbert began making
sexually suggestive comments to E-9, including about her appearance. E-9 told us Philbert’s
hugs became more “intense.” She told us that, in September, he texted her, “I’m in this boring
meeting and something is jiggling in my pants for you and it’s not sand.”

In October 2018, E-9 and Philbert kissed for the first time, in the Provost’s office. They
met almost every morning after that—throughout October and November—to kiss. In late
December, they had sex for the first time, in Philbert’s SPH office. Their sexual relationship
continued through the spring of 2019 and included sexual relations almost every day in Philbert’s
Provost’s office and once at Philbert’s house.

E-9 told us that Philbert asked her to perform sexual acts in the office during the workday
and also asked to take intimate photos of her at work. In the spring of 2019, as she became
increasingly uncomfortable with these interactions, E-9 started dressing in ways that made sexual
relations less feasible (e.g., wearing tights under her clothing). E-9 said she also began asking

90
The staff member was surprised by Philbert’s informal tone, his use of sexual innuendo, and his
comments about women in the Provost’s office. The staff member described being apprehensive about
Philbert’s behavior but eventually following Philbert’s lead.

52
that Philbert commit more to their relationship, which she told us made Philbert increasingly
hostile toward her.

E-9 told us that April 2019 marked a change in her relationship with Philbert, as Philbert
started “turning” on her. On one occasion, E-9 raised a work-related issue with Philbert while he
was meeting with another Provost’s office employee. E-9 told us that later that day Philbert said
to her privately, “You will never disrespect me again. Are you done with me? Done with your
job? Because I can make both happen. I can make you disappear from both . . . I know we’re in
a relationship, but I am your boss. You may never speak to me like that again.” Philbert and E-9
nevertheless continued to have sexual relations through at least May 2019, when their
relationship ended.

Throughout the summer of 2019, Philbert talked about moving E-9 out of the Provost’s
office. E-9 told us about a conversation from June or July 2019 in which she asked him, “What
if I just come forward [about the relationship]?” Philbert responded that it would be her word
against his, and that he was more powerful. He also told her, “If you ever tell anyone about us, I
will make sure you go down. I will destroy your career.”

6. The President Receives His April 2019 Administration Evaluation

Committee (“AEC”) Survey, Which Contains Allegations about Philbert

The Administration Evaluation Committee is a committee of the University’s Faculty

Senate that supports the evaluation of senior administrators by the faculty through the annual
administration of a survey. The survey is open to all University faculty and provides an
opportunity for anonymous reviews of individual executives. The aggregated statistical results
for each official are posted publicly on the AEC website. Anonymous written comments are sent
exclusively to each executive reviewed. No record of the written comments is retained by the
University. On April 30, 2019, President Schlissel received the results of the AEC for himself.

President Schlissel gave us access to his email for the entirety of his time at the
University. We found the 2019 AEC survey in his email. The written comments on the
President from the 2019 AEC survey run some 27 pages. We found the following comment on
page 15:

Re: your administrative appointments: Martin Philbert was/is a notorious sexual

predator, physically cornering and emotionally coercing his female graduate
students in his toxicology lab. I am appalled that he has become provost,
especially since I heard that he had a harassment case settled during his time here.
Settling and NDAs have become a commonplace only recently revealed in their
scope for silencing victims and preventing others [sic] victims of assault and
harassment from coming forward. If my own case were not beyond the statute of
limitations, I would have come forward when he was appointed in 2017. I
certainly consulted local discrimination attorneys, Walker and Blanchard.
Instead, every time I am asked to fill out his evaluation, I get a little PTSD and I
end up writing a note to him and to you. I hope someday his many, many crimes
against women will be revealed. Thanks for listening.

53
President Schlissel told us that he had no recollection of reviewing the written comments,
including the comment quoted immediately above. The metadata associated with the email does
not indicate whether it was ever reviewed; it does show that the email was never forwarded. We
found no reference to the comment in any of the President’s email, and no University official
with whom we spoke was aware of it. President Schlissel told us that, had he read the comment,
he would have routed it to OIE given its specificity.

Philbert received the results of his 2019 AEC survey that same day, April 30. The
confidential narrative included this comment: “I hope someday your crimes against the women
who have worked for you are revealed.” Philbert read the comment at the time. He showed it to
a few members of his staff—who described him as furious and panicked—and he wanted to
know who had submitted it. E-6 recalled Philbert calling her and reading the comment to her;
she asked him if he was accusing her of submitting the comment.

Philbert’s 2018 AEC Survey, which he received on April 25, 2018, contained a similar
comment: “I have encountered you in the past personally, at which time you sexually harassed
me and attempted to sexually assault a colleague. We were under you in the strict university
hierarchy and said nothing. In this #metoo moment, I feel particularly angry to see that you've
risen so far and continue to treat those below you like objects.”

There is reason to believe that the author also submitted a comment on the President’s
2018 AEC Survey. But email records indicate that the President never received those survey
results, and, when he inquired about them a few weeks after they should have been sent to him,
the University had already deleted them. The President therefore never received the 2018
comment, and it was no longer available at the time of our investigation.

We identified and met with the person who wrote all of the comments. The author, who
had experienced misconduct, told us she submitted the comments to Philbert and the President to
voice her anger at Philbert’s promotion to Provost.

7. Philbert Initiates a Sexual Relationship with E-10

As Philbert’s sexual relationships with E-9 and E-6 were coming to an end in the spring
and summer of 2019, he began interacting more with an SPH employee with whom he had
continued to be friendly after he became Provost (hereinafter “E-10”).

Communications between Philbert and E-10 became more personal over the summer of
2019. In the course of their conversations and text messages—which they exchanged on an
encrypted version of WhatsApp—Philbert told E-10 that he had feelings for her that went
beyond their professional relationship. In late August 2019, Philbert and E-10 kissed for the first
time, in the Provost’s office.

Philbert and E-10 saw each other regularly throughout September 2019. E-10 told us
that, around the middle of that month, Philbert suggested they move their electronic
communications to Signal. In October 2019, they had sexual relations for the first time. During
their relationship, they spent time together in hotels and at each other’s houses. Like E-6 and E-
9, E-10 told us that Philbert pressed her to send him explicit photos of herself. She eventually
did so. E-10 told us that, in early January 2020, shortly before Philbert left on a University trip
54
to South Africa, Philbert took explicit photos of her without her consent. E-10 asked Philbert to
delete the images, but he refused to do so. The relationship ended in January 2020 while Philbert
was in South Africa.

8. The President Receives an Anonymous Letter about Philbert’s Conduct

On the morning of January 16, 2020, while Philbert was in South Africa, he sent text
messages to E-6: “I have ruined lives and trust. In every conceivable way.” And “I have to
work on myself. Understand my crap. And then work the steps with everyone who has
supported me. Family, you, the university, people who thought I was something I am not.”

Philbert then sent E-10 a text message, in which he told her that E-6 knew about their
relationship. He assured E-10 that she was not one of many women in his life. That same
morning, Philbert texted E-3 to ask if she was okay and called E-9 to ask if she had told anyone
about their relationship.

The next day, on January 17, the President’s office received an anonymous letter about
Philbert. It begins, in part:

I am writing on behalf of a group of women who have recently connected . . . to

corroborate and share our stories of emotional and sexual abuse perpetrated on us
within your University by your provost Martin Philbert over the past 20 years.
These offenses were made possible through his positions as faculty member,
mentor, dean and provost. While each story has some nuance, they all include the
same pattern and progression, which begins with persistent and inappropriate
sexual comments in the workplace, and for those selected as victims, progresses
to a grooming period with nearly identical tactics, songs, phrases, text messages,
pictures, etc ... shared with the victims to engender a sense of closeness and trust.
The following day, the University retained us to conduct this investigation.

55
IV. Analysis

Our task was to investigate (1) Philbert’s conduct and whether such conduct violated
University policies in effect at the time of such conduct; and (2) what information the University
received regarding Philbert’s conduct during his employment by the University and what action,
if any, the University took in response to that information. We take each of these questions in
turn.

A. Analysis: Philbert’s Conduct

In the course of our investigation, Philbert voluntarily retired from the University,
effective June 30, 2020, and relinquished tenure. Although Philbert is no longer subject to
discipline or termination by the University, we found significant evidence that Philbert engaged
in conduct that violated the University’s Sexual Harassment policy, Standard Practice Guide
(“SPG”) 201.89-0, Sexual Harassment, which prohibits sexual harassment by employees. At all
times during Philbert’s employment, the Sexual Harassment policy prohibited unwelcome sexual
advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature
where:

 submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition

of an individual’s employment, education, living environment, or participation in a
University activity;

 submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for or

a factor in decisions affecting that individual’s employment, education, living
environment, or participation in a University activity; or

 such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an

individual’s employment or educational performance or creating an intimidating,
hostile, offensive, or abusive environment for that individual’s employment,
education, living environment, or participation in a University activity. 91

The Sexual Harassment policy also makes clear, as it did throughout the course of
Philbert’s employment, that the University will take steps to ensure that a person who reports,
complains about, or participates in an investigation of a sexual harassment allegation is not
subjected to retaliation.

We also found significant evidence that Philbert’s conduct violated other University
policies, including:

 SPG 201.23, Nepotism, which (1) prohibits, in part, favoritism toward or discrimination
against any individual in conditions of employment based upon that individual having a

91
The policy was revised twice during Philbert’s employment—once in 2009, and once in 2011—but the
policy’s underlying prohibitions did not materially change.

56
 close personal relationship with another University employee, and (2) requires that a
“management plan” that mitigates conflicts of interest be devised and approved by
relevant University officials where an employee is in a close personal relationship with
another employee under their supervision or control.

 SPG 201.96, Professional Standards for Faculty, which was issued in 2013 and prohibits
behaviors that have the purpose or effect of (1) unreasonably interfering with an
individual’s employment or educational performance, and/or (2) creating an
intimidating, hostile, offensive or abusive climate for an individual’s employment,
academic pursuits, living environment, or participation in a University activity.

***

As discussed in Section III, Philbert engaged in the following conduct toward subordinate
employees and student-employees under his supervision at various points: unwanted sexual
comments (including sexual jokes and comments about the physical appearance of female staff
members, both in person and through electronic means); unwanted personal attention (including
through uninvited personal interaction and other communications); and unwanted physical and
sexual advances (including touching, hugging, kissing, and other sexual activity). He also
pressured at least one subordinate employee to engage in sexual acts in University offices. In
addition, a number of the women who experienced such conduct witnessed or became aware of
similar conduct that Philbert directed at other women in the office.

Multiple women who were subjected to such conduct told us that they made efforts to
avoid Philbert at work. A woman told us that she quit her job at least in part because of
Philbert’s conduct. Some of the women with whom Philbert had a sexual relationship told us
that he made implicit or explicit threats of retaliation if they told others about the relationship.
And several women indicated that they feared adverse professional consequences after their
relationship with Philbert ended.

In sum, we found significant evidence that, over the course of more than fifteen years,
Philbert engaged in sexually harassing behavior toward numerous University employees and
student employees, and that he engaged in multiple sexual relationships with subordinate
employees. We found that this conduct, at various points in time, had a significant impact on the
employment and/or academic experience of several University employees and students and
created an intimidating, hostile, offensive, and abusive environment.

57
 B. Analysis: University’s Knowledge and Response

We also investigated what information the University received related to Philbert’s

conduct and how the University responded to such information. As set forth below, we found
that the University received information about Philbert’s conduct at various times over the
course of more than fifteen years, including during key periods when he was under consideration
and later selected for senior positions within the University.

During the entire period that Philbert was a University employee, the University had legal
obligations to respond to sexual misconduct complaints against employees, both as an employer
and as an institution of higher education that received federal financial assistance. We therefore
begin this section with an overview of the legal and policy landscape governing the University’s
response to sexual misconduct, including a brief summary of how the landscape changed over
time.

1. University Obligation to Respond to Sexual Misconduct Complaints

As noted above, the University’s Sexual Harassment policy, which was in effect
throughout Philbert’s employment, prohibits sexual harassment by employees and retaliation
against persons who report, complain about, or participate in investigations of sexual harassment.
Since 2009, the policy has provided that individuals can file a complaint about an employee’s
harassing or retaliatory behavior by contacting a University official (such as a supervisor, dean,
director or department head), OIE, the appropriate Human Resources office, the Dean of
Students (for students), the Dean’s Office of the Horace H. Rackham Graduate School (for
graduate students), the Center for the Education of Women, or the Department of Public
Safety.92

OIE has been responsible for reviewing and investigating complaints against employees
under the Sexual Harassment policy since about 2004. 93 Since 2009, the Sexual Harassment
policy and its accompanying procedures have made clear that OIE “must be advised of all
reported incidents of sexual harassment,” and that OIE is responsible for “determin[ing] the most
effective method of investigating” concerns raised by a complainant. 94 The policy thus reflects
an expectation that officials and offices designated by the University to receive reports of sexual

92
Prior to 2009, the policy provided routes for raising “formal charges” of harassment (i.e., through a
“dean or director” or a designated University office).
93
Immediately before OIE’s creation, Academic HR, which is responsible for faculty human resources
issues, investigated sexual harassment complaints against faculty.
94
SPG 201.89-0 (2011); SPG 201.89-0 (2009); The University of Michigan Procedural Guidelines for
Handling Discrimination and Harassment Complaints, available at
https://hr.umich.edu/sites/default/files/sh-procedures-spg20189-0.pdf (last visited July 31, 2020); The
University of Michigan Procedural Guidelines for Handling Discrimination and Harassment Complaints
(2009). The previous policy, which was issued in 1993, did not reference OIE (which did not exist in
1993), and thus did not describe OIE’s role in investigating complaints under the policy.
58
harassment against employees will route those reports to OIE, which will then determine how to
investigate them.

As noted in the Sexual Harassment policy, sexual harassment by employees is prohibited

by Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, and
Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act.

Title VII. Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion,
sex, and national origin. As relevant here, Title VII prohibits quid pro quo sexual harassment
and hostile environment sexual harassment (i.e., conduct that interferes with an employee’s work
performance and creates an objectively intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment), as
well as retaliation against any employee who opposes a practice made unlawful by Title VII. 95
These prohibitions were in effect throughout Philbert’s employment. Under Title VII, an
employer must take reasonable care to prevent and correct sexual harassment, including by
ensuring that supervisors and managers understand their responsibilities to address or report
complaints of harassment to appropriate officials. 96 Where an employee asks his or her
employer to keep a complaint confidential or take no action, the employer nevertheless must
determine whether it has a duty to investigate the conduct in order to “discharge its duty to
prevent and correct harassment.”97

Title IX. Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs or
activities that receive federal financial assistance. Sexual harassment (either quid pro quo sexual
harassment or hostile environment sexual harassment) is a form of sex discrimination prohibited
by Title IX. The Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) has issued several
guidance documents over the last two decades to delineate a school’s obligations in this area. 98

In 1997 and again in 2001, OCR issued guidance discussing a school’s obligation under
Title IX to take immediate and corrective action when the school has actual or constructive
notice that a student has been sexually harassed by an employee, another student, or a third party,

95
Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2002e-2; U.S. EQUAL EMP. OPPORTUNITY COMM’N,
EEOC-CVG-1999-2, ENFORCEMENT GUIDANCE: VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR UNLAWFUL HARASSMENT
BY SUPERVISORS (1999).

96
U.S. EQUAL EMP. OPPORTUNITY COMM’N, EEOC-CVG-1999-2, ENFORCEMENT GUIDANCE:
VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR UNLAWFUL HARASSMENT BY SUPERVISORS (1999).
97
Id.
98
As described in this section, OCR’s guidance has changed significantly over the years, and in ways that
have sometimes led to confusion among colleges and universities seeking to follow it.

59
even when a student does not use the school’s existing grievance procedures. 99 In the guidance,
OCR explained that schools have notice of harassment when an “agent or responsible employee”
has notice. OCR also provided examples of constructive notice that trigger Title IX
obligations—including where “known incidents [of harassment] should have triggered an
investigation that would have led to a discovery of the additional incidents.” 100 The guidance
defined the term “responsible employee” to include any employee who “has the duty to report to
appropriate school officials sexual harassment” or who “a student could reasonably believe” had
that responsibility.101 The guidance further provided that schools should take steps to prevent
retaliation against individuals who experience harassment and others who report or provide
information about harassment.

The guidance also addressed how a school should proceed if a student reporting
harassment requested confidentiality or that the school not take action. Specifically, the
guidance explained that, in such a case, a school “should take all reasonable steps to investigate
and respond to the complaint consistent with the student’s request as long as doing so does not
prevent the school from responding effectively to the harassment and preventing harassment of
other students.”102 The guidance noted that, when only one student raised a harassment
complaint and asked that his or her name not be revealed, “OCR would not expect disciplinary
action against an alleged harasser.”103 The guidance further explained, however, that a
complainant’s request for confidentiality should be weighed against the school’s obligation to (1)
provide a safe and nondiscriminatory environment for its students and (2) fulfill its obligations of
fundamental fairness requiring notice of allegations to the respondent. 104 The guidance set forth
a number of factors to be considered in making this determination—including, for example, the

99
OCR’s 1997 guidance stated that it did not address sexual harassment of employees, even though that
conduct may be prohibited by Title IX, and that sexual harassment against employees should be evaluated
under case law applicable to sexual harassment claims under Title VII. U.S. DEP’T OF EDUC., OFFICE OF
CIVIL RIGHTS, SEXUAL HARASSMENT GUIDANCE: HARASSMENT OF STUDENTS BY SCHOOL EMPLOYEES,
OTHER STUDENTS, OR THIRD PARTIES (1997). OCR’s subsequent guidance similarly focused on sexual
harassment of students. U.S. DEP’T OF EDUC., OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS, REVISED SEXUAL HARASSMENT
GUIDANCE: HARASSMENT OF STUDENTS BY SCHOOL EMPLOYEES, OTHER STUDENTS, OR THIRD PARTIES
(2001). The new Title IX regulations issued in May 2020, which are effective August 14, 2020, make
clear that the Department of Education may enforce Title IX and its requirements with respect to
complaints by employees. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities
Receiving Federal Financial Assistance, 80 Fed. Reg. 30,026 (May 19, 2020) (to be codified at 34 C.F.R.
§ 106.
100
U.S. DEP’T OF EDUC., OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS, SEXUAL HARASSMENT GUIDANCE: HARASSMENT OF
STUDENTS BY SCHOOL EMPLOYEES, OTHER STUDENTS, OR THIRD PARTIES (1997).
101
U.S. DEP’T OF EDUC., OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS, REVISED SEXUAL HARASSMENT GUIDANCE:
HARASSMENT OF STUDENTS BY SCHOOL EMPLOYEES, OTHER STUDENTS, OR THIRD PARTIES, 13 (2001).
102
Id. at 17.
103
Id.
104
Id.

60
seriousness of the conduct and whether there have been other complaints or reports of
harassment against the alleged harasser. 105

A decade later, in 2011, OCR issued a “Dear Colleague Letter,” which supplemented its
1997 and 2001 guidance by providing detailed instructions for investigating and adjudicating
sexual harassment complaints.106 The Dear Colleague Letter focused on sexual harassment by
students and referred to OCR’s earlier guidance for information about employee harassment of
students. In 2014, OCR issued guidance expanding on the Dear Colleague Letter, which again
focused on student-on-student sexual harassment but noted that Title IX prohibits sexual
harassment of students by employees. 107 Both the 2011 and 2014 guidance made clear that
schools would be held accountable for failures to take immediate and appropriate steps to
investigate suspected misconduct. The guidance also reiterated OCR’s earlier guidance,
described above, that a school should take a range of factors into account when considering a
complainant’s request for confidentiality.108

In response to the 2011 Dear Colleague Letter, the University of Michigan—along with
colleges and universities across the country—significantly revised its policies and procedures
addressing sexual misconduct complaints against students, including in 2013 and 2016. 109 And
in 2011, the University shifted responsibility for investigating complaints against students to
OIE. Until that time, OIE had investigated harassment complaints against employees only. As
OIE enhanced its procedures for responding to complaints against students, it imported some of
those same enhancements into its procedures for responding to complaints against employees.

State Law. The University has had (and still has) similar obligations under state law.
Since 1977, the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act has prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex,
including quid pro quo and hostile work environment sexual harassment, by state educational

105
Id. The guidance further noted that, by investigating a complaint to the extent possible, even when the
complainant wished to remain anonymous, the school “may learn about or be able to confirm a pattern of
harassment based on claims by different students that they were harassed by the same individual,” thus
allowing the school to put the alleged harasser on notice without revealing the identity of the original
complainant.
106
U.S. DEP’T OF EDUC., OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS, DEAR COLLEAGUE LETTER FROM ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR CIVIL RIGHTS RUSSLYNN ALI ON SEXUAL VIOLENCE (2011).
107
U.S. DEP’T OF EDUC., OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS, QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON TITLE IV AND SEXUAL
VIOLENCE (2014).
108
U.S. DEP’T OF EDUC., OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS, QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON TITLE IV AND SEXUAL
VIOLENCE, 21–22 (2014).
109
In 2017, OCR withdrew the 2011 and 2014 guidance and issued new interim guidance. As noted
above, supra n.99, new Title IX regulations were released in May 2020 and are effective August 14,
2020. Although the new regulations include a number of changes to schools’ obligations under Title IX,
they do not change the guiding principle that schools will be held accountable for failing to adequately
respond to sexual misconduct.

61
institutions.110 Much like Title VII and Title IX, the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act requires an
employer to investigate and take prompt and appropriate remedial action when it has notice of
alleged sexual harassment.111

***

In late 2017, the #MeToo movement garnered significant public attention and gained
momentum on college and university campuses across the country. Building on advocacy
catalyzed by OCR’s 2011 Dear Colleague Letter and 2014 guidance, many students and student
organizations called for greater accountability in schools’ approaches to sexual misconduct. The
movement has increased awareness of sexual misconduct—and in turn has spurred an increase in
sexual misconduct reporting112—across many sectors, including in academia.

In the sciences, in particular, there has been significant attention to the prevalence of
sexual harassment in college and university settings. In 2018, a report by the National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine documented pervasive sexual harassment of
women in higher education—particularly in STEM fields—and called on schools to take steps
beyond compliance with Title VII and Title IX to prevent sexual harassment. 113 Also since
2018, both the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health have taken
measures intended to protect members of the research community from harassment, including by

110
Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, MICH. COMP. LAWS §§ 37.2101–37.2804. Similarly, since November
2006, an amendment to the Michigan Constitution has prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex by
public colleges and universities in the context of public education and public employment. M ICH. CONST.
Art. 1 § 26.
111
See, e.g., Radtke v. Everett, 501 N.W.2d 155, 168 (Mich. 1993).
112
See, e.g., Roee Levy, Martin Mattsson, Working Paper, The Effects of Social Movements: Evidence
from #MeToo (Mar. 30, 2020), available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3496903
(analyzing effects of the #MeToo movement on reporting sexual crimes to law enforcement and
concluding that, because increased reporting took place before any major changes to laws or policy,
reporting increase can be attributed to changing social norms”); Jamillah Bowman Williams, Lisa Singh,
Naomi Mezey, #MeToo As Catalyst: A Glimpse Into 21 Century Activism, 2019 UCHILF 371, 385 (2019)
(noting indications that more individuals are reporting sexual harassment through legal channels since the
start of the #MeToo movement); Jamie D. Halper, In Wake of #MeToo, Harvard Title IX Office Saw 56
Percent Increase in Disclosures in 2018, Per Annual Report, HARVARD CRIMSON (Dec. 14, 2018),
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/12/14/2018-title-ix-report/.
113
See NAT’L ACAD. OF SCI., ENG’G, AND MED., SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF WOMEN: CLIMATE,
CULTURE, AND CONSEQUENCES IN ACADEMIC SCIENCES, ENGINEERING, AND MEDICINE (2018); see also
Action Collaborative on Preventing Sexual Harassment in Higher Education, NAT’L ACAD. OF SCI.,
ENG’G, AND MED., https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/action-collaborative-on-preventing-
sexual-harassment-in-higher-education (last visited Jul. 17, 2020).

62
requiring grantees to notify them if a principal investigator is removed for engaging in sexual
harassment or other inappropriate conduct. 114

This heightened awareness around sexual misconduct in higher education has led to an
increased focus by many colleges and universities on efforts to promote a culture that does not
tolerate sexual misconduct. Although schools’ underlying legal obligations to respond to sexual
harassment, including under Title VII and Title IX, have not changed, the #MeToo movement
has profoundly increased interest in whether and how those obligations are being fulfilled. 115

2. What the University Knew About Philbert

We now analyze the various points in time at which the University received information
related to Philbert’s conduct toward women, and how the University responded to that
information.

a) 2003: Allegations Raised By Tom Komorowski 116

In September 2003, Tom Komorowski, an employee in Philbert’s lab, alleged that

Philbert was in a close personal relationship with a female lab employee. He made the allegation
in connection with a complaint that Philbert had terminated him because of his age. In the
course of discussing his complaint with Jeff Frumkin, the Director of Academic HR,
Komorowski also mentioned Philbert’s conduct toward other lab employees. Specifically, notes
from a subsequent meeting among Frumkin, an SPH administrator, and two SPH faculty
members mention Philbert’s “boundary issues” and refer to a female graduate student—Jane
Doe—with the statement “Martin showed up uninvited at home.” The SPH faculty member who
later interviewed Philbert about his alleged relationship with the lab employee reported back to
Frumkin that he “did not learn anything that would confirm the charges about a personal
relationship with [the female lab employee].” There is no evidence the University investigated
Philbert’s conduct toward any other woman in the lab or undertook to investigate whether or
why he went to Jane Doe’s home.

Komorowski later sued the University over his termination. The complaint did not allege
any relationship between Philbert and the female lab employee. Both Philbert and the lab
employee were deposed, both denied any improper relationship, and no evidence of a
relationship materialized. The litigation was settled about a year and a half after the complaint
was filed, and Komorowski received a cash payment. Considering all the actions taken by the
University during the initial investigation and the later litigation, we did not identify additional

114
Press Release, Nat’l Sci. Found., NSF announces new measures to protect research community from
harassment (Sept. 19, 2018), https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=296610; Press Release,
Nat’l Inst. of Health., Changing the culture of science to end sexual harassment (Sept. 17, 2018),
https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statements/changing-culture-science-end-sexual-
harassment (last visited July 30, 2020).
115
See, e.g., Emma Pettit, The Next Wave of #MeToo, CHRON. OF HIGHER EDUC. (Feb. 16, 2020),
https://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Next-Wave-of-MeToo/248033 (last visited July 30, 2020).
116
For a full discussion of the facts, see supra Section III(A)(2).

63
steps that the University should have taken to investigate the relationship alleged by
Komorowski.

We learned in the course of our investigation that Jane Doe was one of several students
who may have experienced sexual misconduct by Philbert while she worked in his lab.
However, we did not find evidence that Komorowski reported any sexual misconduct by Philbert
involving Jane Doe (or anyone else), or that the University developed evidence of such conduct
in connection with the Komorowski matter. Indeed, the only information we identified on this
point consists of the notes from the meeting among Frumkin, an SPH administrator, and SPH
faculty members referring to Philbert “show[ing] up uninvited” at Jane Doe’s home; they do not
state or imply that Philbert sexually harassed her. We therefore conclude that it was reasonable
for the University not to initiate an investigation based on the limited information it had about
Philbert and Jane Doe.

b) 2005 Allegations117

In 2005, a graduate student and a research assistant, both of whom worked in Philbert’s
lab, separately told an SPH professor (hereinafter “the SPH Professor”) that Philbert had kissed
them; one of the women also said Philbert had made comments about having “caramel colored
babies” and “something about chocolate syrup sex.” The SPH Professor conveyed the
information to Anthony Walesby, the OIE Director, and several senior University officials,
including Vice Provost Lori Pierce and SPH Dean Ken Warner.

Walesby contacted the two women; one cried and declined to provide further
information; the other indicated a potential willingness to speak with Walesby but ultimately did
not respond to his outreach.118 Walesby also contacted another graduate student, who had no
first-hand experience of misconduct by Philbert but told Walesby that Philbert had a “bad
reputation” among female students. This graduate student also reported that a fellow student had
told her that Philbert had hugged her twice and said something to her about “sleep[ing] w/him if
not married.” Finally, Walesby contacted a male SPH faculty member, who told him that there
were rumors about Philbert’s “women’s issues,” but that he (the faculty member) did not know
any details.

117
For a full factual discussion, see supra Section III(B)(1)-(6).
118
The second of these two women recalls meeting with OIE and providing additional information. We
were unable to find a record of that such a meeting.

64
 The University did not open an investigation because the two potential complainants
declined to file a formal complaint or to otherwise participate in an investigation. Walesby told
us that without them, there was nothing on which to build an investigation. 119

We conclude that the University should have taken further steps to investigate Philbert in
2005. Victims of sexual harassment are entitled to decide whether they want to participate in an
investigation, and a complainant’s decision not to provide information may limit the University’s
ability to investigate the conduct. Nevertheless, schools are obligated to take all reasonable steps
to investigate sexual harassment reports, consistent with the victim’s wishes not to participate, in
order to provide a nondiscriminatory environment for students and employees. 120

The University failed to take all reasonable steps in this instance. OIE had information
from several individuals—students and faculty—about Philbert’s conduct, including that he had
kissed a graduate student and a research assistant from his lab without their consent. Moreover,
the key reports were firsthand (by way of the SPH Professor) and all four reports were consistent
with each other. Indeed, Dean Warner told us he found the allegations sufficiently credible that
he “read [Philbert] the riot act.” Philbert was a professor and principal investigator in his lab—
he was therefore in a position to harass multiple students and employees. This heightened the
importance of taking additional investigative steps to ensure that students and employees
working with Philbert did so in a safe and nondiscriminatory environment.

OIE had avenues of investigation available to it. To begin with, OIE could have
attempted to interview other employees and students in Philbert’s lab. There is no way to know
whether such interviews would have uncovered other troubling conduct. But it is clear that—in
the absence of an OIE investigation—the University did not put itself in a position to know
whether Philbert had sexually harassed students or employees. When the same allegations
surfaced in 2010 during the SPH Dean’s search, University personnel mistakenly relied on the
outcome of OIE’s work in 2005 as though it had fully investigated the allegations.

c) 2010 Dean’s Selection121

During the 2010 SPH Dean’s search and selection process, members of the Dean’s
Search Advisory Committee, which selected Philbert as a finalist, and Provost Hanlon, who

119
Walesby told us that the decision to not investigate was a collective decision among himself, Frumkin,
and OGC. In 2005, OIE was the office responsible for responding to complaints of sexual harassment
against employees. The University’s Sexual Harassment policy did not reflect that, however; it had not
been updated since 1993, and thus did not refer to OIE (which was not created until about 2004). It was
not until 2009 that the Sexual Harassment policy and its accompanying procedures were revised to make
clear that OIE was responsible for “determin[ing] the most effective method of investigating” complaints
under the policy. SPG 201.89-0 (2009); The University of Michigan Procedural Guidelines for Handling
Discrimination and Harassment Complaints (2009).
120
See, e.g., U.S. DEP’T OF EDUC., OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS, SEXUAL HARASSMENT GUIDANCE:
HARASSMENT OF STUDENTS BY SCHOOL EMPLOYEES, OTHER STUDENTS, OR THIRD PARTIES (1997);
Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2002e-2.
121
For a full discussion of the facts, see supra Section III(C).

65
recommended Philbert to be Dean of SPH, received several pieces of information about
Philbert’s conduct toward women that raised red flags. The information included the following:

2005 Allegations. Paula Lantz, the Chair of the Search Committee, learned of the 2005
allegations against Philbert from a Committee member who had heard them from an SPH faculty
member. Lantz told us that she contacted Dean Warner, and he informed her that an
“investigation” in 2005 had not substantiated any wrongdoing. He also told her that he had
counseled Philbert. We found no evidence that Lantz received any other information about the
2005 allegations. In an email to the Committee member who had learned of the allegations,
Lantz stated: “No wrong-doing was revealed after what was described to me as an ‘intense
investigation.’ As such, there is no record of inappropriate behavior and no formal grievance
was ever filed.”

In the same email, Lantz stated that she did not want to inform the full Committee about
the 2005 allegations “as a specific instance because the investigation revealed no wrongdoing.”
Lantz told the Committee member, “You, of course, are free to bring it up if you don’t agree
with my perspective.”122 It does not appear that the full Committee ever learned of the specific
allegations that had been reported to OIE in 2005. However, Lantz did share what she had
learned about the 2005 allegations with the Provost’s office.

Hanlon had more information about the 2005 allegations than Lantz. After he learned
about the allegations, his calendar shows that he met with Dean Warner “re SPH search.” 123
Hanlon later received an email summary prepared by Walesby (who was still Director of OIE)
about the allegations. Walesby’s summary stated that two women had reported to an SPH
professor that Philbert had kissed them; that one of the women reported that Philbert had made
comments to her about having “caramel colored babies” and “something about chocolate syrup
sex”; and that the other said “Philbert was a ‘bad man’ who did ‘bad stuff.’” 124 Hanlon later met
with Walesby to discuss the allegations. 125

Hanlon emailed University President Mary Sue Coleman to inform her about the 2005
allegations.126 He described the allegations and stated that OIE “had no evidence apart from
rumor and the matter was resolved with the Dean having a frank discussion with Martin.”
Hanlon further stated that “[t]he search committee was aware of these allegations and the
investigation but felt that was in the past and that Martin had learned his lesson.”

122
Lantz noted in the email that “the general issue of gender and behavior, demeanor and baggage from
prior interactions does need to be addressed[.]”
123
Neither Hanlon nor Warner recalled this meeting.
124
Pierce also received Walesby’s summary of the 2005 allegations. We found no evidence that Lantz
received the summary.
125
Neither Hanlon nor Walesby recalled this meeting, but email correspondence shows that they met and
discussed the allegations.
126
Coleman did not recall this email or being aware of any allegations regarding Philbert’s conduct.

66
 Other Conduct. Lantz, members of the Search Committee, and/or Hanlon learned of
other allegations and information regarding Philbert’s conduct toward women:

 Hanlon learned about the Komorowski litigation and met with OGC attorney Dave
Masson to learn more about the lawsuit. (We found no evidence that Lantz or the
Committee knew about the Komorowski lawsuit.)

 One of the Committee’s graduate student representatives raised concerns about a

comment Philbert had made to students, and Lantz encouraged her to share her
experience with the full Committee. The student representative informed the
Committee that, in 2006 or 2007, Philbert had stated in class that women have high
rates of urinary tract infections because “the playground and the trash heap are too
close together.” (Our investigation did not establish that Hanlon learned about this
specific comment.)

 The Committee received the results of a confidential survey regarding Philbert, in

which one comment—written by a survey participant who described herself as having
interacted with Philbert while he was a “a professor in class, in his role as associate
dean, and as a colleague”—referred to Philbert’s “inappropriate comments and
behaviors with respect to female students, staff, and faculty.” The participant stated:
“I was subject to inappropriate and unwanted sexual comments and suggestions. I
felt threatened—not physically but in terms of my job security given his senior status
and as my associate dean for academics and research.” No Committee members,
other than Lantz, recalled reviewing the comment or discussing it in Committee
deliberations (or otherwise).127 Hanlon had access to the survey results through an
online system but told us he does not recall reviewing the comment, and we could not
determine if he did.

 The Committee developed a one-page summary on each of the finalists, including

Philbert, and it used those summaries in discussing the candidates with Hanlon. The
summary for Philbert referred to “perceived inappropriate behavior, especially with
females” and noted that Philbert had “received pointed feedback/warnings regarding
this behavior when he became a senior associate dean 5 years ago.” The summary
further stated that there was “no evidence that this is an ongoing or current problem
[but] rumors and negative feelings among some members of the SPH community
linger.” The summary did not specifically reference the 2005 allegations.

We reach the following conclusions regarding the actions of relevant University

personnel in response to the information described above:

127
There is reason to believe that at least some members of the Committee were aware of the comment.
Lantz wrote an email to a Committee member while the Dean’s search was underway; the email described
Philbert’s issue with gender and behavior, and also said that “it does come up in the feedback comments.”

67
 Committee Chair. Lantz’s knowledge of the 2005 allegations was limited. She received
information from a Committee member about the allegations and then met with Dean Warner.
According to Lantz, Warner said the allegations had been investigated and were not
substantiated. Lantz did not receive the email summary prepared by Walesby (or any other
information) regarding the allegations. Lantz shared what she knew about the 2005 allegations
with the Provost’s office. But she did not inform the full Committee about the specific
allegations reported to Walesby in 2005 because, as noted above, she understood, albeit
incorrectly, that they had been investigated and the investigation had “revealed no
wrongdoing.”128 Given the information before her, we believe Lantz exercised reasonable
judgment in choosing not to raise the 2005 allegations with the full Committee. 129

We believe that Lantz (or anyone else on the Committee) should have forwarded the
confidential survey results received by the Committee—specifically, the comment that Philbert
had subjected a survey participant to “inappropriate and unwanted sexual comments and
suggestions”—to OIE.130 From the vantage point of the Committee, the comment was a specific
and previously unreported allegation of misconduct by a faculty member. The University’s
Sexual Harassment policy provided, at that time, that OIE “must be advised of all reported
incidents of sexual harassment,” and it was OIE’s responsibility to investigate such reports. 131
But OIE could not investigate reports that were not brought to its attention. And in this instance,
the faculty member was a candidate for a senior leadership position—making it that much more
important for the information to have been reported to OIE.

Provost Hanlon. As described above, Hanlon had more information than the Committee
regarding Philbert’s conduct—including about both the Komorowski litigation and the 2005
allegations. And, with the possible exception of Philbert’s alleged classroom comment, Hanlon
received or had access to the all of the information collected by the Committee regarding
Philbert’s conduct. This included the Committee’s summary noting Philbert’s “perceived
inappropriate behavior, especially with females,” and the confidential survey results containing a
comment about his “inappropriate comments and behaviors” toward women.

Hanlon has no recollection of having read the survey comment, and we did not find any
evidence to suggest that he did. We did find that he had access to the comment. Had Hanlon
reviewed the comment, we reach the same conclusion that we reach above with respect to the

128
There is evidence, however, that the Committee discussed more general examples of Philbert’s
conduct toward women from the same time period, as a one-page summary on Philbert stated, “Martin
received pointed feedback/warnings … 5 years ago. All of the examples and reports of inappropriate
behavior appear to be at least 5 years old.”
129
Lantz also told the Committee member who was aware of the 2005 allegations that she was “free to
bring [the allegations] up” to the full Committee. (Lantz had previously encouraged the Committee’s
graduate student representative to share with the full Committee her concerns about Philbert’s comments.)
130
Lantz should also have alerted Hanlon to the comment because Hanlon was responsible for deciding
who would be the next SPH dean. We could not establish whether Lantz did so.
131
SPG 201.89-0 (2009).

68
Committee: Hanlon should have provided the information to OIE for such further action as it
considered appropriate.

We asked Hanlon about his consideration of the 2005 allegations during the 2010 Dean’s
search. He told us that it was apparent from the documents we showed him 132 that the
allegations “were taken seriously . . . There was an independent investigation by Walesby . . .
[who] concluded that no further investigation by OIE was necessary and that Dean Warner
would speak to Professor Philbert as follow up.” At the time of the Dean’s search, in Hanlon’s
email to Coleman, he wrote that “Anthony Walesby investigated 133 … [and] [i]n the end,
[Walesby] had no evidence apart from rumor and the matter was resolved with the Dean having a
frank discussion with [Philbert].”134

To be sure, Hanlon did not dismiss the information he received about Philbert’s conduct.
He met with Walesby about the 2005 allegations, and he met with OGC about the Komorowski
lawsuit. He also asked Vice Provost Lori Pierce to make what he described to us as “reference
calls” to women in SPH. Pierce recalled that her task was to contact female graduate students
and faculty to learn of any concerns about Philbert. And staff in the Provost’s office obtained
contact information for the students who had witnessed or been subjected to Philbert’s alleged
misconduct in 2005—fact-gathering that staff told us would have been part of Hanlon’s “due
diligence.”135 Hanlon himself made reference calls to at least six SPH faculty and
administrators.136

Hanlon was entitled to rely on the results of OIE’s work. But the record shows that OIE
never conducted an investigation of the 2005 allegations. Hanlon’s reliance on OIE was

132
In the course of interviewing Hanlon, we showed him emails that he received and sent while the
Dean’s search was underway. The emails included the summary of the 2005 allegations prepared by
Walesby, which Hanlon received on October 18, 2010.
133
Hanlon told us that he trusted Walesby and found him to be thorough, professional, and a person of
high integrity.
134
There is tension among (a) Hanlon’s understanding of OIE’s efforts in 2005 (i.e., that there was an
“investigation” and that OIE had “no evidence apart from rumor”), (b) the written summary of the 2005
allegations prepared by Walesby in 2010 (i.e., that OIE had determined not to conduct an investigation),
and (c) the fact that Dean Warner addressed the 2005 allegations in a frank discussion with Philbert at the
time (which Dean Warner did because he found the allegations credible and assumed the conduct
happened). However, we do not have a complete record about the information Hanlon received. For
instance, Hanlon and Walesby met in person on October 19, prior to Hanlon emailing Coleman, and
neither Hanlon nor Walesby recalled that meeting or how Walesby described his efforts to learn more in
2005.
135
Only one of the students identified in the staff member’s email agreed to meet with us. She said that
no one from the Provost’s office (or any other University office) contacted her about Philbert’s conduct
during the 2010 Dean’s search.
136
At least one of these individuals recalled telling Hanlon that he had heard rumors of Philbert’s conduct
toward women.

69
therefore either misplaced or based on a misunderstanding of what OIE had done to get to the
bottom of the allegations about Philbert that were raised at that time. And even assuming that
Hanlon relied on OIE’s work to conclude that the 2005 allegations were unsubstantiated, Hanlon
had additional information about potential misconduct by Philbert (e.g., the Committee’s
summary noting Philbert’s “perceived inappropriate behavior, especially with females,” and the
survey comment about Philbert’s “inappropriate comments and behaviors” toward women).

Hanlon was also entitled to conduct due diligence about Philbert’s conduct, and we find
that he did that work carefully. But to the extent Hanlon believed that a closer look at the 2005
allegations was warranted—particularly in order for him to reach a judgment as to whether
Philbert was fit to serve as Dean of SPH—he should have turned to trained investigators in OIE,
the office responsible for reviewing and investigating sexual harassment allegations, to pursue
that inquiry.

President Coleman. Coleman does not recall the email about Philbert’s candidacy that
she received from Hanlon on October 20, 2010. She also does not recall being aware of any
allegations regarding Philbert’s conduct toward women. She told us that she would have relied
on the judgment of Hanlon and Walesby, both of whose judgment she trusted. She also
acknowledged that she—and perhaps others who may have received this information regarding
Philbert—likely would not have given it the same weight in 2010 as they would today. We
believe Coleman should have asked questions and pressed to gain a full understanding of the
allegations about Philbert’s conduct. Absent a complete record regarding any conversations
between Coleman and Hanlon (or any other Senior Administrator), we are unable to reach any
conclusions about whether she failed to do so.

d) 2013 Tuition Reimbursement137

In the fall of 2012, E-1—one of the women who had raised allegations of sexual
misconduct against Philbert in 2005—re-enrolled in SPH. In the spring of 2013, she filed
petitions requesting a tuition refund and transcript amendment based on emotional distress she
was experiencing related to Philbert’s alleged sexual harassment of her several years earlier.
Walesby alerted several University officials, including then-Provost Hanlon, incoming Provost
Martha Pollack, Director of Academic HR Jeff Frumkin, and Christine Gerdes, an OGC attorney.
He sent the group the same summary of the 2005 allegations that he had prepared in 2010 in
connection with the Dean’s selection process. Within the following month, the University
granted both of E-1’s petitions.

While preparing her petitions, E-1 met with Walesby and in the course of the meeting, he
attempted to learn more about her allegations. She declined to provide additional information.
Walesby concluded that there were no specific allegations to move forward on. Walesby
conferred with Vice Provost Pierce about whether he should inform Philbert about E-1’s
petitions, and discussed concerns about “possible retaliation if [Philbert] knew” about the

137
For a full discussion of the facts, see supra Section III(D)(3).

70
petitions. Walesby later met with Philbert and, without sharing E-1’s name, alerted him to the
petitions.

E-1’s petitions were the third time in eight years that the 2005 allegations came to the
attention of senior University administrators. Since E-1 provided no new information and the
senior administrators who were briefed on the petition thought, albeit mistakenly, that E-1’s
allegations had been fully investigated by OIE in 2005, it is understandable none of them thought
to ask OIE to investigate the allegations in 2013.

e) 2017 Provost Selection138

President Schlissel. In 2017, President Schlissel recommended and the Board of Regents
approved Philbert as University Provost. We found no evidence that information about
Philbert’s alleged misconduct reached the President in advance of Philbert’s selection.

During the summer of 2017—after Philbert had been selected and announced as Provost,
but before he had taken office —President Schlissel learned of the Komorowski litigation. With
the assistance of OGC, President Schlissel collected information about the litigation, including
about the alleged relationship between Philbert and a female lab employee in 2003. President
Schlissel learned that the facts, which came in large part from sworn deposition testimony, had
not established the existence of a relationship. President Schlissel thus found no reason to
reverse Philbert’s appointment.

We reached the same conclusion: The litigation record—including the testimony of

multiple witnesses—included no evidence that Philbert had had a relationship with a female lab
employee. We did not identify any additional evidence that the President or the University
should have considered, or any further steps that should have been taken in response to the
information President Schlissel learned.

Provost Search Committee. We similarly found no evidence that information about

Philbert’s alleged misconduct reached the Provost Search Committee during its deliberations.

Vice Provost Pierce was a member of the Provost Search Committee. Pierce learned of
the allegations against Philbert in 2005 when she met with the SPH Professor and directed her to
report the information to OIE; she called women in SPH about Philbert’s conduct when
allegations surfaced during the 2010 Dean’s search; and she received information that the
allegations were at issue in E-1’s request for tuition reimbursement in 2013.

Pierce did not mention the allegations to the Provost Search Committee or the President.
She told us that she did not recall being asked, as a member of the Committee, whether she was
aware of any allegations of misconduct against Philbert, and she simply “did not think about it.”

138
For a full discussion of the facts, see supra Section III(E).

71
She explained that, to her recollection, “there had been no evidence to support” the allegations 139
and it was not an established “data point,” “so it was just gone from [her] mind.”

There is no evidence that information about Philbert’s conduct came to Pierce’s attention
after 2013.140 And we did not find evidence of the Provost Search Committee seeking such
information, either in paper form or verbally, from Committee members. Considering the
totality of the evidence, we credited Pierce’s statement that she did not think about the 2005
allegations while participating in the Committee’s work.

We recognize that, as a general matter, prior unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct

should not be considered in the University’s selection processes and other personnel decisions.
And, to be sure, Philbert had never been found to have violated University policy or engaged in
other misconduct. However, in light of the nature of the 2005 allegations (e.g., unwanted kissing
and a proposition for sex)—which then surfaced again in 2013 when one of the women, E-1,
requested a tuition reimbursement (which the University granted)—we believe that had Pierce
recalled the allegations, it would have been appropriate for her to raise them with the Committee
or with President Schlissel for consideration. This is particularly so in light of the senior
leadership position for which Philbert was being considered. If President Schlissel had received
that information, he would have been in a position—as Hanlon was in 2010—to conduct
additional diligence regarding Philbert’s conduct before making a decision on Philbert’s
candidacy for Provost.

f) Other Information Received by the President’s Office

Information Received by the Special Counsel to the President. In the fall of 2017, E-7, an
SPH employee, met with Liz Barry, the Special Counsel to the President, to discuss a position E-
7 was considering in the Provost’s office. E-7 recalled expressing some hesitation about
working for Philbert and “insinuate[ing] something around Me Too.” She also may have said
that Philbert “needs to be careful that people do not perceive what he says as inappropriate.”

Barry told us about a conversation in which E-7 referred to Philbert having “issues with
women” and stated that part of her job would be to “coach” him on interactions with women.
Barry told us that she understood the issue to be Philbert’s management style, in part because she
did not associate the term “coaching” with sexual misconduct. We reviewed all emails between
Barry and E-7 for a seven-month period after September 1, 2017 (the day Philbert started as
Provost) and found no references to sexual misconduct or other improper behavior by Philbert.

We do not find that Barry received a report of sexual misconduct, or that there were any
further steps that she could reasonably have been expected to take in response to what E-7 told
her.

139
As discussed above, based on our analysis of the entire record, we disagree that there was no evidence
to support the allegations.
140
We reviewed the entirety of Pierce’s available email for references to Philbert and potential
misconduct; we found none after 2013.

72
 President Schlissel’s 2019 AEC Survey. On April 30, 2019, President Schlissel received
his 2019 AEC survey results. The anonymous narrative comments included allegations that
Philbert was a “sexual predator.” The University has established channels, including anonymous
channels, for reporting sexual misconduct. The AEC survey is not a reporting channel.
However, the AEC survey is a way for faculty to make statements to senior officials, and the
premise of the upward evaluation process is that the official being reviewed will receive and read
those statements. 141

President Schlissel has no recollection of having read the comment. We did not find that
President Schlissel (or anyone else in the President’s office) had knowledge of the comment in
the 2019 AEC survey regarding Philbert. We did find that, as of April 2019, he had access to
that comment. Based on the nature of the survey, while the President was not required to read it,
we understand he may have been expected to read it. President Schlissel acknowledged that had
he reviewed the comment, he would have routed it to OIE. In light of OIE’s responsibility for
reviewing and investigating sexual harassment complaints, we believe that would have been the
correct course of action.

g) Reports to Other University Employees

The events described above are the most significant instances in which University
officials learned of information or allegations regarding Philbert’s conduct toward women.
However, we identified other instances where other University personnel received similar
information regarding Philbert. In two of these instances, the employees who received the
information were in supervisory roles:

 In either 2010 or 2011, a staff member in the SPH Dean’s office told her supervisor
that Philbert’s comments had “crossed the line.” 142 The staff member recalled
describing Philbert’s comment that her breasts felt good against his chest during a
hug. The staff member specifically asked the supervisor not to file an official report.
The supervisor told us that she made a written record of the conversation and stored it
in the staff member’s personnel file.143

 In 2018, an SPH staff member, E-7, discussed Philbert’s conduct with E-6, who held
a supervisory role in SPH.144 Specifically, E-7 described Philbert’s comment that he

141
We found two emails generally related to this issue. First, AEC sends an email to recipients stating,
“How you treat the message and its confidential and anonymous content is up to you.” Second, President
Schlissel also sent an email on April 1, 2019 stating, “I also want to encourage all administrators being
evaluated to take the feedback received from the faculty survey seriously, as it provides an important
perspective on the work of the university.”
142
For a full discussion of the facts, see supra Section III(B)(7).
143
The supervisor’s practice would have been to inform her own supervisor—an associate dean—but she
could not recall specifically whether she had done so, and the associate dean did not recall having been
told about the report.
144
For a full discussion of the facts, see supra Section III(F)(3).
73
 wanted to see below E-7’s tan lines. E-7 mentioned that she had met with Liz Barry,
the Special Counsel to the President. E-6 concluded that she need not report the
information to OIE because E-7 did not feel professionally disadvantaged by
Philbert’s comments, and because E-6 assumed that the President’s office was aware
of the comments.145

In both cases, these employees, because of their roles, were designated under the
University’s Sexual Harassment policy to receive reports about an employee’s sexually harassing
behavior. At the time of both reports, the policy reflected an expectation that officials designated
to receive reports of sexual harassment would route those reports to OIE, which would then
“determine the most effective method of investigating” a complaint. 146 The policy applied
regardless of whether other designated officials had received the same report. Accordingly, we
conclude that in both instances, the reports should have been provided to OIE. 147

We found two additional instances when University personnel received information

regarding Philbert’s conduct toward women. First, in 2017, E-7 complained about Philbert’s
comments, without providing detail, to an SPH faculty member who had previously served in a
leadership position.148 The faculty member seemed to believe at the time of this conversation
that she was expected to provide reports about sexual harassment to OIE. However, because the
faculty member was no longer in a leadership position at the time of her conversation with E-7,
and did not otherwise supervise E-7, we conclude that she was not an official designated to
receive reports under the Sexual Harassment policy.

In 2018, E-8, a staff member in the Provost’s office, told E-6—who, as noted, held a
supervisory role in SPH—about her discomfort when Philbert told her that people in the office
thought she (E-8) was his girlfriend. Although E-6 held a supervisory role in SPH, that
supervision did not extend to E-8, who worked in the Provost’s office. The Sexual Harassment
policy does not make clear whether employees in supervisory roles are expected to inform OIE

145
E-6 was in an undisclosed sexual relationship with Philbert at the time of this conversation. We can
only speculate as to whether that influenced her thinking about whether to report what E-7 told her. As to
E-7’s meeting with Barry, as noted above, we concluded that Barry did not receive a report of sexual
harassment from E-7.
146
The University of Michigan Procedural Guidelines for Handling Discrimination and Harassment
Complaints (2009). The Sexual Harassment policy did not specifically address whether designated
officials must report to OIE when—as was the case in 2010 or 2011—an employee does not want to file a
report. We heard from OIE officials, however, that the University expects such reports to be routed to
OIE.
147
We did not, in either case, assess whether the employee who received the report had received
adequate training with respect to her responsibility under the Sexual Harassment policy to provide such
reports to OIE.
148
For a full discussion of the facts, see supra Section III(F)(2).

74
of a report by an employee who is not under their supervision. Given this lack of clarity, we
cannot conclude that E-6 was expected to provide E-8’s report to OIE.

C. Analysis: Summation
The preceding analysis addresses Philbert’s conduct, what information the University had
about it, and what the University did in response to that information. We now address why, in
our estimation, only certain information was known (and other information was not known) to
senior University administrators as Philbert rose from assistant to full professor and from there to
SPH Dean and University Provost.

As an initial matter, we did not find evidence that University personnel intentionally hid
allegations about Philbert’s misconduct. Rather, the heart of our findings is that the University
should have done more to investigate an early, credible allegation that Philbert had engaged in
sexual misconduct in 2005. Had OIE conducted a meaningful investigation at that time, it may
have identified at least some additional evidence, as we did in our investigation. That evidence
in turn could have informed the consideration he received for leadership positions, including in
2010, when Provost Hanlon learned of the 2005 allegations. Hanlon relied on the adequacy of
OIE’s review in 2005, but OIE had not done the work to know, one way or the other, if Philbert
had engaged in the alleged conduct. Moreover, had the 2005 inquiry yielded more evidence,
then other information regarding Philbert’s conduct that came up in the 2010 Dean’s search—
such as the anonymous comment from a survey participant that she had received “inappropriate
and unwanted sexual comments and suggestions” from Philbert—may have been viewed
differently and appropriately referred to OIE.

Missed investigative opportunities aside, there is a separate question as to why, in light of

the persistent and widespread nature of Philbert’s conduct, University officials did not learn of
other instances of Philbert’s inappropriate behavior. Information about Philbert’s misconduct
did not come up during two critical periods—when Philbert was renewed as Dean of SPH in
2015, and when he was selected as Provost in 2017. And prior to 2020, no witnesses from the
Dean’s office or the Provost’s office filed a complaint against Philbert despite many instances of
potential misconduct while he served there. Our investigation revealed two key reasons why
witnesses may have chosen not to come forward.

First, Philbert normalized his behavior. We heard from several University personnel that
Philbert consistently behaved in an informal and flirtatious manner with students and colleagues
alike, regularly hugging people and engaging in conversations that included inappropriate, and
sometimes sexual, comments. We conclude that at least some of Philbert’s colleagues viewed
his discomfiting behavior as part and parcel of his usual manner. When a faculty member in
SPH was told by one of Philbert’s subordinates about a comment by Philbert—that he wanted to
see where the subordinate was not tan—the official said the comment was, “within the range of
Philbert’s interactions.” Thus, it appears that certain instances of Philbert’s conduct might have
been more readily scrutinized—and reported—had they not been accepted as a component of his
personality. As discussed above, the advent of the #MeToo era is changing in profound ways the
response to offensive behavior, and may have contributed to the willingness of women to come
forward in January 2020.

75
 Second, multiple witnesses—including some who were in a relationship with him—said
they were afraid that Philbert would have retaliated against them if they had reported him. This
appeared to chill several people from reporting Philbert’s conduct. In 2005, the two women who
alleged being kissed by Philbert did not want to report him because they were concerned that he
would take action against them or people close to them (despite assurances that the University
prohibited retaliation). This was a consistent theme we heard from many women who
experienced Philbert’s misconduct at various points in time: They were afraid to report him
because he was a powerful, influential figure who could affect their professional (and, in some
cases, personal) lives. Philbert had expressly threatened some of them—one witness, who in fact
was in a relationship with Philbert, told us that he said: “If you ever tell anyone about us, I will
make sure you go down. I will destroy your career.” And at least one of the women who
reportedly experienced misconduct nearly two decades ago did not respond to our request for an
interview because she remained concerned that doing so would damage her career.

* * *

Two things are clear: First, there is significant evidence that Philbert engaged in a wide
range of sexual misconduct, including sexual harassment, for at least fifteen years. Second,
neither OIE nor the senior leadership of the University understood the seriousness or the
pervasiveness of Philbert’s misconduct. Among our recommendations below, we make
suggestions for closing that information gap so that the University is better positioned to identify
and respond to sexual misconduct issues moving forward.

76
V. Recommendations
We developed recommendations based on our key findings and conclusions regarding
Philbert’s conduct and the University’s response to allegations about Philbert. We also
considered current University policies, procedures, and practices, including those addressing
sexual misconduct, and compared those policies, procedures, and practices to those of peer
institutions.

Our recommendations fall into three categories. In Part A we recommend actions to

ensure that information about sexual misconduct and other inappropriate behavior reaches the
appropriate University officials, including OIE, the entity responsible for investigating sexual
misconduct complaints. In Part B we recommend actions to ensure that OIE’s findings are
informed by thorough investigations. And in Part C we recommend actions to ensure that the
University’s hiring decisions are informed by past findings of policy violations, including
findings regarding sexual misconduct. In sum, we are recommending actions to ensure that the
University has access to information regarding sexual misconduct, and that such information is
reliable and systematically considered when important decisions are made. More broadly, our
recommendations are intended to enhance the University’s ability to prevent, identify, and
respond to complaints of sexual misconduct, including conduct of the kind described in this
Report.

We also have general suggestions about how to implement our recommendations; we do

not prescribe a course of action. The University is in the best position to determine how best to
adapt and implement our recommendations.

A. Ensuring that Information Reaches OIE and Appropriate University

Officials
Much of Philbert’s conduct toward women, as well as his sexual relationships with
subordinate employees, did not come to the attention of University officials. Our findings
demonstrate the importance and challenge of ensuring that information about sexual misconduct
and other inappropriate behavior reaches University officials. We make two sets of
recommendations in this area.

First, the University’s Nepotism policy prohibits favoritism and discrimination in the
context of “close personal relationship[s]” between employees. However, the policy does not
provide clear notice regarding the appropriate course of action when two employees enter into a
consensual relationship, including the circumstances under which the University must be notified
of the relationship. We thus recommend that the University adopt a standalone policy that
addresses consensual relationships between employees and makes clear what obligations are
triggered by such relationships.

Second, information about sexual misconduct may not always reach OIE, which is
responsible for investigating such conduct. Complainants and witnesses may not be inclined to
report through established channels (or to report at all) because—as was the case with several of
the witnesses with whom we spoke—they have concerns about confidentiality and/or they fear
retaliation. Our investigation also revealed that (1) despite the University’s efforts to ensure that
available reporting mechanisms are widely understood, confusion remains among some members

77
of the University community regarding how or where to report; and (2) employees who are
obligated to report suspected sexual misconduct may not fully understand the scope of that
obligation. We make several recommendations below to address these issues.

We note that in April 2019, following an independent review commissioned by the

University, the law firm of Hogan Marren Babbo & Rose, Ltd. issued a report (the “HMBR
Report”) containing recommendations for enhancing the University’s reporting mechanisms and
written policies and procedures regarding sexual misconduct. Some of our recommendations
echo and build on recommendations made in the HMBR Report. 149

1. Establish a Standalone Policy Regarding Consensual Relationships

Between Employees
Consensual relationships between University employees ordinarily do not implicate
issues of sexual misconduct reporting, and thus are not reviewed by OIE. Under certain
circumstances, however, the fact that such a relationship exists is information that should be
provided to appropriate University officials. To ensure that employees have notice of their
obligations when they enter into a consensual relationship, we recommend that the University
establish a standalone policy regarding consensual relationships between employees.

Philbert engaged in multiple sexual relationships with subordinate employees while

serving as Dean of SPH and as Provost. Such relationships between employees—though they
may be consensual—create the potential for actual and perceived conflicts of interest,
exploitation, and favoritism where the employees occupy unequal positions of authority, and
may disrupt the workplace environment. Moreover, such relationships can involve issues of
sexual harassment and retaliation.

Like many of its peer institutions, the University has policies that address “sexual,
romantic, amorous, and/or dating relationships” between faculty and students as well as between
staff and students.150 The University does not, however, have a standalone policy addressing
such relationships between employees. Rather, the University addresses issues of favoritism and
discrimination arising from employees’ “close personal relationship[s]” in its Nepotism policy,
Standard Practice Guide (“SPG”) 201.23. Section 1 of the Nepotism policy prohibits favoritism
toward or discrimination against an individual “based upon that individual’s being a relative of

149
Hogan Marren Babbo & Rose, Ltd., Report of Review of Sexual Misconduct Policies and Procedures
(Focus on Faculty and Staff), April 2019.
150
SPG 601.22 (faculty-student relationship policy); SPG 601.22-1 (employee-student relationship
policy).

78
or having a close personal relationship or external business relationship to another person
employed by the University.”151

Section II of the Nepotism policy (“Regulations”) provides that, where an individual is

assigned to a position under the supervision or control of a “relative,” a management plan must
be devised to “mitigate possible conflicts of interest.”152 The management plan must be
approved by the head of the organizational unit and the unit’s senior human resources officer. 153

While the University requires a management plan for employees in close personal
relationships, the language of the policy and its accompanying procedures do not make that
requirement clear in two respects. First, although Section I of the policy states that “relative”
includes “close personal relationships,” Section IV (“Definitions”) defines “relative” as a person
with a familial or household relationship, and states that this definition is “not to be construed to
exclude the possibility of questions of favoritism arising with regard to other relatives, or other
close personal or external business relationships.”154 Second, the policy sets forth one procedure
for “relatives” (the development of a management plan), and a second procedure for “[o]ther
close personal relationships and external business relationships.” This second procedure does
not expressly require the development of a management plan; instead, it requires supervisors to
investigate concerns of favoritism arising from such relationships and to consult with the
appropriate human resources officer regarding what action should be taken. 155 In short, the
Nepotism policy does not state clearly whether employees in a consensual relationship must
develop a management plan.

Many institutions of higher education have recently adopted policies addressing

consensual relationships between faculty/employees and students. Fewer schools have focused
on consensual relationships between employees in positions of unequal authority. Schools that
address such relationships tend to do so either in (1) a nepotism policy covering
familial/household relationships and (sometimes in a separate section) consensual relationships,

151
SPG 201.23, Section I(B) (emphasis added). The policy makes clear that it does not apply to or
supplant situations covered by the University’s Sexual Harassment policy (SPG 201.89-0). The Sexual
Harassment policy, in turn, states that the Nepotism policy “precludes individuals from evaluating the
work performance of others with whom they have intimate familial or close personal relationships, or
from making hiring, salary, or similar financial decisions concerning such persons, without prior written
approval.”
152
Id. at SPG 201.23, Section II.
153
Id.
154
Id. at SPG 201.23, Section IV(A).
155
See SPG 201.23, Appointment of Relatives, the University of Michigan, available at
https://hr.umich.edu/working-u-m/management-administration/uhr-procedures/20123-appointment-
relatives (last visited July 30, 2020).

79
or (2) a standalone policy for consensual relationships. 156 Regardless of form, such policies
typically have two common features. First, notification is required—i.e., the employee in the
position of greater authority must notify designated officials about the relationship. Second,
recusal and/or mitigation is required—i.e., the employee in the position of greater authority must
recuse himself or herself from any role of authority, supervision, or evaluation and/or must agree
to a plan for alternate supervisory arrangements.

To be clear, the University’s Nepotism policy prohibits favoritism and discrimination in

the context of “close personal relationship[s]” between employees. 157 But the policy does not
state a clear course of action when employees in unequal positions of authority enter into a
consensual relationship.158 To ensure that employees have clear notice of the University’s
expectations, we recommend the following:

 The University should develop a standalone policy explicitly focused on consensual

relationships between employees (faculty and staff) in positions of unequal authority,
thus limiting the scope of its Nepotism policy to cover familial and household
relationships only.

 The policy should define “covered relationships.” Covered relationships should

include relationships between employees in positions of unequal authority where one
party has supervisory or evaluative authority over the other. “Supervisory or
evaluative authority” should be defined to include, e.g., the power to control or
influence another person’s employment, including but not limited to hiring, work
conditions, compensation, promotion, discipline, assignments, and recommendations.

 The policy should state what is required of employees in such relationships.

Specifically, the policy should set forth a notification and recusal and/or mitigation
model for covered relationships, including that:

o The employee in the position of greater authority must notify designated

officials of the relationship; and

o The employee in the position of greater authority must recuse himself or

herself from any role of authority, supervision, or evaluation over the other
employee; or

o The employees must agree to a management plan that is designed to mitigate

possible conflicts of interest.

156
Some schools address consensual relationships in a broader sexual misconduct policy, while noting
that such relationships do not constitute prohibited misconduct under the policy.
157
SPG 201.23, Section I.
158
Id.
80
  The policy should state that the failure to follow the steps outlined above—including
an employee’s failure to notify designated officials of a covered relationship—
constitutes a violation of the policy.

Employees in a consensual relationship are more likely to understand their obligations if

they are set forth in a standalone policy. Such a policy will also make clear the University’s
commitment to identifying and preventing conflicts of interest, favoritism, and discrimination
that may arise from employee relationships.

2. Educate the University Community on Avenues for Reporting Sexual

Misconduct
We recommend that, in addition to efforts made to date, the University further educate
students and employees on the avenues for reporting sexual misconduct.

OIE is the exclusive entity responsible for investigating allegations of sexual misconduct
against students and employees.159 Individuals with information regarding suspected prohibited
conduct can report to OIE (by phone, by email, through OIE’s website, or in person), or to
designated employees who are required to report suspected prohibited conduct to OIE (known as
“Responsible Employees,” as defined by current University policy). Individuals can also submit
anonymous online reports to OIE. OIE’s website and the University’s dedicated “Sexual
Misconduct” website160 describe these reporting options, as well as information about
confidential resources and options for reporting to law enforcement. 161

In October 2019, informed by the recommendations in the HMBR Report, the University
released a draft umbrella policy for addressing sexual and gender-based misconduct that applies
to misconduct by or against students, faculty, staff, and third parties on the Ann Arbor, Dearborn
and Flint campuses.162 The draft umbrella policy sets forth the avenues for reporting sexual
misconduct, as well as the available confidential resources on campus. 163 When the University

159
Reports of sexual harassment made under the Sexual Harassment policy (SPG 201.89-0), which is
applicable to complaints against faculty and staff, are investigated by OIE, or jointly with another office
as determined by OIE.
160
The University launched the Sexual Misconduct website in September 2019 as a one-stop shop for
information about reporting sexual misconduct and the University’s processes for responding to such
reports.
161
See Sexual Misconduct Reporting & Resources, the University of Michigan, available at
https://sexualmisconduct.umich.edu/ (last visited July 27, 2020).
162
See Umbrella Policy, the University of Michigan, available at
https://sexualmisconduct.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Policy_10.3.19_clean.pdf (last visited
July 30, 2020).
163
Confidential resources are University employees who are prohibited from disclosing confidential
information unless (1) given permission by the person who disclosed the information; (2) there is an
imminent threat of harm to self or others; (3) the conduct involves suspected abuse of a minor under the
age of 18; or (4) as otherwise required or permitted by law or court order.
81
implements this new policy, we recommend that it take the opportunity to remind students and
employees (e.g., through a campus-wide email) about how to report sexual misconduct to OIE,
as well as the identity and availability of confidential resources. 164

In addition, we found that allegations of sexual misconduct that are raised or referenced
in tools used to provide employee feedback, such as anonymous surveys, may never reach OIE.
Those tools are not designated channels for reporting. As described above, see supra Section
III(F)(6), allegations about Philbert appeared in three AEC surveys, which are anonymous and
confidential evaluations by faculty members of a University executives’ work performance. The
University directs survey responses exclusively to the executive under review and does not retain
or review them. Accordingly, we recommend that the University add a notice to anonymous
surveys and other methods for providing feedback about faculty and staff to make clear that
these tools are not channels for reporting sexual misconduct. The notice should also alert readers
to the available options for reporting sexual misconduct allegations to OIE.

3. Enhance Visibility and Training of Mandatory Reporters

The University’s Sexual Harassment policy, which applies to complaints against
employees, designates certain University officials to whom complaints under the policy may be
made. Similarly, the University’s Interim Policy and Procedures on Student Sexual and Gender-
Based Misconduct and Other Forms of Interpersonal Violence identifies “Responsible
Employees” who are required to report suspected misconduct to OIE. The University’s draft
umbrella policy—which, as noted above, is a single policy that applies to misconduct by or
against students, faculty, staff, and third parties—also identifies Responsible Employees who are
required to report suspected misconduct to OIE.

Employees who are designated to receive complaints of sexual misconduct (referred to

here as “mandatory reporters”165) are a critical link between potential complainants and OIE. To
ensure that these employees provide an effective avenue for reporting, it is critical that (1)
members of the University community understand which employees are mandatory reporters (as
opposed to confidential resources); (2) employees understand whether they are mandatory
reporters and the scope of their responsibilities as such; and (3) all employees understand their
role in responding to reports of sexual misconduct, whether or not they are a mandatory reporter.
We thus recommend that the University enhance the visibility of and training provided to
mandatory reporters.

Enhanced Visibility. Although the University has made efforts to indicate in its policies
the employees who are designated to receive reports of sexual misconduct, we found that

164
This reminder would be in addition to the other means through which the University publishes
information about sexual misconduct reporting.
165
The Department of Education’s newly-issued Title IX regulations, which are effective August 14,
2020, give institutions wide discretion to designate those employees who are “mandatory reporters”
required to report sexual harassment allegations to the Title IX Coordinator. Nondiscrimination on the
Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance, 80 Fed. Reg.
30,026 (May 19, 2020) (to be codified at 34 C.F.R. § 106).

82
confusion persists—both with respect to who those employees are and what their reporting
responsibilities are.166

The Sexual Misconduct website and OIE’s website currently provide links to the policies
that enumerate the categories of employees who are mandatory reporters. We recommend that,
in addition to providing links to the relevant policies, these websites have a dedicated page that
separately lists the categories of employees who are mandatory reporters. Additionally, the
University, in coordination with OIE, should encourage its units and schools to provide clear
information to their students, faculty, and staff regarding the personnel in those units or schools
who are mandatory reporters.167

Enhanced Training. OIE provides in-person training to certain groups of employees

(such as Resident Advisors and members of Student Life and Athletics) regarding their reporting
obligations. That training has, at various points in time, been mandatory for some groups of
employees.168 OIE also offers online “Responsible Employee” training, which is available on
the Education and Training page of its website. 169 This training was distributed to employees
when it was rolled out in 2016, and OIE often identifies it as a resource during in-person
trainings and/or sends it via email to certain employees. The online training is not mandatory
and is not distributed widely on an annual basis. Some employees with whom we spoke did not
recall ever having received training from OIE (whether in-person or online) regarding their
reporting obligations, and some witnesses expressed confusion about when the obligation to
report attaches.170

The University should require that all University employees receive annual online
training regarding (1) the avenues for reporting sexual misconduct, (2) which employees are
mandatory reporters, and (3) the reporting obligations of mandatory reporters (i.e., under what
circumstances they are required to report and how they are to do so). Requiring that all
employees take such training increases the chances that all employees understand whether they
are mandatory reporters. Such a requirement also ensures that anyone who has recently become

166
The April 2019 HMBR Report noted that the term “Responsible Employee” is not consistently defined
across the University’s existing policies and it recommended that the University adopt a University-wide
definition of “Responsible Employee” in its umbrella policy. The current draft umbrella policy carries
out that recommendation.
167
In any communication or location in which the University provides information about mandatory
reporters, information regarding confidential resources should also be provided.
168
For example, Athletics receives mandatory Responsible Employee training annually.
169
See Education and Training Programs, the University of Michigan, available at
https://oie.umich.edu/education-and-training-programs/ (last visited July 30, 2020).
170
In 2019, all University employees were required to take an online training regarding sexual and
gender-based misconduct and other forms of interpersonal violence. That training, which appears to have
been well-received by many groups, did not include guidance as to which employees are responsible
employees or responsible employees’ reporting obligations.

83
a mandatory reporter (e.g., due to a change in position or responsibilities) receives guidance
regarding his or her reporting obligations. This approach also ensures that all employees—even
those who are not mandatory reporters—understand the alternative means for reporting sexual
misconduct.

The University should also ensure that this training identifies the confidential resources
available to the University community and includes content on a bystander’s role in recognizing
the warning signs of sexual misconduct and intervening when appropriate.

In addition to the annual training requirement, OIE should evaluate whether specific
groups of employees and/or mandatory reporters, in addition to those groups that typically
receive in-person training, would benefit from additional training. We recommend, for example,
that OIE provide targeted training to Human Resources Directors who sit within University units
and schools regarding their reporting obligations with respect to suspected sexual misconduct
involving employees.

4. Provide Alternative Oversight of Sexual Misconduct Allegations Involving

Members of the Provost’s Office
OIE currently reports to the Provost. On January 22, 2020, President Schlissel moved
OIE’s reporting line for all matters related to this investigation to the Associate Vice President
for Human Resources, Richard S. Holcomb. Some witnesses told us that they did not previously
report Philbert’s conduct to OIE based on its reporting relationship to him as Provost. For any
report made to OIE involving a respondent in the Provost’s office, we recommend that (1) OIE’s
reporting line for that matter be moved to another appropriate office or official, and (2) the
University publicize that policy to the University community (through, for example, OIE’s
website or the Sexual Misconduct website).

5. Conduct a Climate Survey Regarding Sexual Misconduct for Faculty and

Staff
We recommend that the University conduct a climate survey for all employees that is
aimed at providing University officials with critical information about employees’ experience
with sexual misconduct on campus.

In the spring of 2019, the University was one of 33 schools to participate in a climate
survey of undergraduate and graduate students conducted by the Association of American
Universities (“AAU”) regarding sexual misconduct. The University also participated in climate
surveys of undergraduate and graduate students in 2015 (one administered by the AAU, and one
designed specifically for the University and administered by a local Ann Arbor firm). All of
these surveys were administered on the Ann Arbor campus. The University has not participated
in similar surveys of its faculty and staff. The April 2019 HMBR Report observed that the
University may wish to use climate surveys to “conduct periodic assessments of its employees’
knowledge of and comfort with using the available sexual misconduct policies and
procedures.”171

171
Hogan Marren Babbo & Rose, Ltd., Report of Review of Sexual Misconduct Policies and Procedures
(Focus on Faculty and Staff), April 2019.
84
 We agree that the University should conduct a climate survey specifically designed for
faculty and staff (including student employees) and should share the results of that survey with
the University community. The survey should seek information regarding, for example, (1)
employees’ experience with sexual misconduct on campus; (2) employees’ understanding of and
satisfaction level with the University’s sexual misconduct policies and procedures; and (3)
whether employees fear retaliation in connection with reporting sexual misconduct.

B. Ensuring that Findings are Based on Full Investigations

A central issue in this case involves the University’s decision not to investigate
allegations of sexual harassment after two potential complainants, each of whom had previously
described her first-hand experience to a professor, declined to file a complaint or to provide
further information to OIE. At that point, OIE’s inquiry had not established whether the
misconduct had occurred, and OIE closed the matter. Given the nature of the allegations and the
evidence available at the time, we conclude that OIE should have taken additional investigative
steps. See supra Section IV(B)(2)(b).

Five years later, some University officials appeared to have concluded, erroneously, that
OIE had completed an investigation of the 2005 allegations and concluded that misconduct had
not occurred. University officials are, as a general matter, entitled to rely on the results of
completed investigations.172 But investigative findings are reliable only if informed by an actual
investigation.173

Investigating sexual misconduct is challenging, especially where potential complainants

decline to participate. OIE cannot and should not compel a potential complainant to participate,
and where a complainant declines to do so, OIE may not be able to fully investigate and/or meet
its evidentiary burden. OIE must also consider a complainant’s stated wish to take no action
(indeed that may mean some cases do not proceed). But under some circumstances, further
investigative steps may be warranted; as noted above, supra Section IV(B)(1) a complainant’s
wishes must be weighed against the school’s obligation to provide a safe and nondiscriminatory
environment for its students.

The University has greatly enhanced its training of OIE investigators in the fifteen years
since its review of the allegations against Philbert in 2005. Newly-hired investigators receive
training when they are onboarded; shadow other OIE investigators or associate directors before
conducting investigations; and review case files to understand the various procedural issues that
may arise in investigations. OIE investigators also receive internal training throughout the year,
including through periodic office-wide trainings, and receive materials on topics related to

172
In addition, subjects of investigation are entitled to repose when an investigation does not substantiate
any wrongdoing.
173
We are not suggesting that OIE should reopen investigations whenever allegations that have already
been thoroughly investigated are re-asserted. But reopening an investigation may be appropriate when,
for example, new information comes to light or when the original investigation was ended prematurely or
otherwise inadequate.

85
conducting investigations and making findings.174 OIE investigators have also received training
from an external consultant with significant investigations experience, in addition to participating
in other external training opportunities.

We examined a single case in 2005 involving two first-hand complainants who declined
to participate where, in our view, options for further investigation existed but were not pursued.
We did not review any other OIE investigations, nor did we comprehensively review the content
of the training that OIE provides to its investigators. For those reasons, we do not make
recommendations regarding the way OIE conducts investigations or the training that it provides
to its investigators. However, we recommend the University consider the following:

 Evaluate OIE investigative practices, and consider adopting formal investigative

guidelines, to ensure that OIE is identifying and, as appropriate, pursuing additional
investigative steps when complainants decline to participate.

 Establish formal file reviews on a routine basis to provide quality assurance and
confidence in investigation procedures and outcomes. For example, supervisory
investigative personnel could review files with line investigators at defined time
intervals, or upon closure of a file. In the first instance, such reviews could be
directed at those matters where an investigation has not proceeded due to a
complainant’s decision not to participate.

C. Ensuring that Hiring Decisions are Informed by Past Findings of Policy

Violations
Our investigation revealed opportunities to improve the University’s vetting procedures
in its significant hiring decisions. With respect to internal candidates, we recommend that the
University ensure that substantiated findings of policy violations and other misconduct are
available to decisionmakers and systematically considered. Similarly, with respect to external
candidates, we recommend that the University consider implementing a pilot program that
enhances its ability to identify findings by previous employers of sexual and other misconduct.

Philbert’s case did not involve substantiated findings of policy violations or other
misconduct. Prior to his appointment SPH Dean in 2010 and University Provost in 2017, there
were no substantiated findings that Philbert had violated University policy or otherwise engaged
in misconduct (although allegations of sexual misconduct had come to the attention of University
officials). Thus, the recommendations below, standing alone, would not have affected those
selection processes. We nevertheless believe that these recommendations would improve the
quality of the University’s vetting procedures and, in turn, enhance the integrity of its personnel
decisions.

Vetting of Internal Candidates. OIE maintains information about investigation outcomes,

including findings of policy violations and otherwise inappropriate behavior. Academic HR,

174
We understand that some of these materials will be updated to be consistent with the University’s draft
umbrella policy, including any changes made to that policy as required by the new Title IX regulations,
which go into effect on August 14, 2020.

86
which oversees human resources issues involving faculty, maintains findings of policy violations
(other than violations of the Sexual Harassment policy) and other misconduct by faculty.

In 2019, in an effort to enhance information-sharing in connection with promotion and

tenure decisions, the Provost’s office instituted a practice whereby OIE and Academic HR
review the names of candidates for tenure and promotion and provide information to relevant
decisionmakers about investigative outcomes regarding those candidates. 175 This practice is not
formally documented in University policy.176 Separately, with respect to senior-level
appointments of internal candidates—which occur on a more one-off basis—the relevant
decisionmakers can obtain information from OIE or Academic HR about internal candidates, but
there is no formal policy requiring decisionmakers to do so.

While the University has made efforts recently to improve information-sharing in

faculty promotion and tenure decisions, we recommend that the University formalize that
practice to ensure that it is uniformly applied to all promotion, tenure, appointment,
reappointment, and other hiring decisions involving internal candidates. Specifically:

 The University should ensure that findings of policy violations and other misconduct
are collected and accessible.177

 The University should establish a formal written process for obtaining and
considering findings of policy violations and other misconduct in promotion, tenure,
appointment, reappointment, and other hiring decisions involving internal candidates.
Such a process would, for example, require that relevant decisionmakers coordinate
with appropriate University offices (e.g., OIE, Academic HR, or other designated
office) to identify findings that an internal candidate has violated University policy or
engaged in other misconduct.

 The University should instruct decisionmakers that a finding that a candidate has
violated University policy or engaged in other misconduct is not an automatic
disqualifier for an internal position, but that such information should be weighed on a
case-by-case basis in view of the facts and circumstances (such as the length of time
that has passed since the incident, the nature of the incident, the severity of the
incident, etc.) and in consultation with other University officials as appropriate.

175
Information regarding a policy violation or other finding of inappropriate behavior or misconduct is
not necessarily disqualifying; the decisionmaker has the discretion to decide to what extent information
affects the individual’s candidacy.
176
This practice does not include a review of non-faculty employees who are promoted or move to other
units or University of Michigan campuses. In such cases, the relevant hiring unit is responsible for
conducting a reference check, including a review of information in the employee’s unit-level personnel
file or the University’s central personnel file.
177
We understand that OIE recently began using a new database with improved search functionality of
case files.

87
Importantly, this is not a recommendation that individuals involved in hiring decisions
investigate sexual misconduct. That responsibility remains with OIE.

Decisionmakers and/or search committees may learn of previously unreported

allegations of sexual misconduct in the course of their deliberations (as was the case with
allegations raised against Philbert in a confidential survey during the 2010 Dean’s search, see
supra Section III(C)(4). The University should ensure that individuals involved in promotion,
tenure, appointment, and other hiring decisions involving internal candidates—including
individuals who serve on search committees—understand that previously unreported allegations
of sexual misconduct that arise in the course of their deliberations should be reported to OIE,
which is responsible for reviewing and investigating such allegations.

Vetting of External Candidates. Some universities have recently announced pilot

programs or adopted policies requiring reference checks for final external candidates for
purposes of uncovering violations of institutional policy (including sexual harassment). 178 The
programs apply to designated positions (e.g., academic appointments conferring tenure or
security of employment) or, more broadly, to all faculty and staff positions. The programs
typically require a candidate to consent to a reference check. Once a consent is received, the
university contacts current and previous institutions to inquire whether the candidate has violated
institutional policy.

In conjunction with its efforts to enhance vetting procedures for internal candidates, the
University should review its procedures for vetting external candidates for faculty and staff
positions, and consider implementing a pilot program that enhances its ability to identify findings
by previous employers of sexual or other misconduct.

178
These schools generally will not consider candidates who decline to sign a waiver. Schools that
conduct such reference checks are also willing to respond to similar requests from external employers
regarding current or former employees, provided those current or former employees waive confidentiality.

88
Appendix 1 – University Announcement179

From: President Mark S. Schlissel

Date: Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 3:18 PM
Subject: Allegations of sexual misconduct

To All Members of the U-M Ann Arbor Community:

The University of Michigan has received and acted on allegations of sexual misconduct against
Martin A. Philbert, provost and executive vice president for academic affairs. With the
endorsement and full support of the U-M Board of Regents, I have placed Dr. Philbert on
administrative leave, effective Jan. 21, 2020, pending the results of an investigation we began on
Friday, Jan. 17.

I will follow up in the coming days regarding the appointment of an acting provost and executive
vice president for academic affairs.

We take allegations of sexual misconduct very seriously, and our policy is clear: Sexual
misconduct will not be tolerated in the University of Michigan community.

I want to apprise everyone of what has happened over the last few days and the actions we have
taken.

 On Thursday and Friday, Jan. 16-17, 2020, the university received several allegations of
sexual misconduct by Dr. Philbert.

 We began an internal investigation Friday. Over the next three days, the university
retained an outside law firm which immediately launched an investigation of the
allegations, our Division of Public Safety and Security was engaged, and Dr. Philbert was
directed not to report to work. I placed him on administrative leave Tuesday.

 The Office for Institutional Equity, who would normally handle such investigations,
reports to the provost. Today, I have moved OIE’s reporting line for all matters related to
this investigation to Associate Vice President for Human Resources Richard S. Holcomb.

The U-M Board of Regents and I are committed to a full and thorough investigation, and we will
continue to work to ensure the integrity of the process, following the same policy and practices
that apply to all employees at U-M. It remains early in the investigation, and no findings or
conclusions have been reached.

179
See Allegations of sexual misconduct, the University of Michigan, (Jan. 22, 2020),
https://president.umich.edu/news-communications/statements/allegations-of-sexual-misconduct/ (last
visited July 30, 2020).
i
We thank the individuals who have come forward with these allegations. We know that reporting
requires courage. The university has offered support services and will work diligently to assist
those who report in every way possible.

We encourage any member of our community who is aware of conduct that may violate U-M’s
sexual misconduct policy to notify our Office for Institutional Equity. You may also report, seek
support or access confidential resources on our sexual misconduct website.

If you have information on this case, you can report in three ways:

 The Office for Institutional Equity (734-763-0235)

 U-M’s anonymous compliance hotline (1-866-990-0111) or via the website.
 Division of Public Safety and Security (734-763-1131)

We recognize and thank the many members of our community who have spent considerable time
over the last few years helping us with revisions to our sexual misconduct policies, increasing
awareness of this problem and helping us become a better university. These efforts – and your
many contributions – have been essential and remain so, as we strive to create a safe, respectful
and inclusive culture, where everyone has an equal opportunity to thrive and accountability
applies to all.

Sincerely,

Mark S. Schlissel
President

ii
 Appendix 2 – Witness Glossary

Identifier Description

An SPH Professor who worked in SPH-2 in 2005 and received allegations of misconduct by
The SPH Philbert from GS-1, E-1, and Mary Roe, and other graduate students. She reported the
Professor allegations to the Ken Warner (SPH Dean), Anthony Walesby (OIE), and Lori Pierce (Vice
Provost) in 2005, and met with Pierce during the SPH Dean’s search in 2010.

An SPH graduate student who learned about E-1’s experience with Philbert and reported it to
GS-1 the SPH Professor. This student also likely spoke with Anthony Walesby (OIE) briefly in
2005.

A graduate student who worked in Philbert’s lab in the late 1990s and early 2000s. We
Jane Doe
received several second-hand reports that she experienced inappropriate conduct by Philbert.

A graduate student who worked in Philbert’s lab in 2005 and who reported to the SPH
Professor that Philbert had kissed her neck and said that Philbert was “a bad man” who wanted
Mary Roe
to talk about “bad stuff.” Anthony Walesby (OIE) reached out to her in 2005, but she did not
provide him with details of the alleged incident.

A research assistant who worked in Philbert’s lab in 2005 and who reported to the SPH
Professor that Philbert kissed her neck and said that he wanted to have “caramel colored
babies” together and “something about chocolate syrup sex.” Anthony Walesby (OIE) reached
E-1
out to her in 2005, but she did not provide him with details of the alleged incident. In 2013, E-
1 filed a petition for tuition reimbursement and met with Walesby and other University
officials.

A staff member in the SPH Dean’s office who received a full body hug from Philbert around
E-2
2012-2013 and later took steps not to be alone with him.

A staff member in the SPH Dean’s office who was in a sexual relationship with Philbert from
E-3
2013-2014 and experienced unwanted conduct by him in 2015.
An SPH staff member who was in a sexual relationship with Philbert during periods between
E-4
2013-2018.

E-5 An SPH staff member who was in a sexual relationship with Philbert from at least 2017-2018.

A staff member in the SPH Dean’s office who was in a relationship with Philbert from 2017-
E-6
2019.

An SPH staff member to whom Philbert made sexualized comments in 2016-2018, including
E-7
while being recruited to the Provost’s office.

E-8 A Provost’s office staff member to whom Philbert made sexualized comments in 2018-2019.

iii
E-9 A Provost’s office staff member who was in a sexual relationship with Philbert in 2019.

E-10 An SPH employee who was in a sexual relationship with Philbert in 2019-2020.

iv