20171207 Jennifer Barmon (DOE)
20171207.1400 - DoE OCR, Barmon
===
Logan M Isaac: [00:00:00] Okay, looks like it's recording. It is about 1:59 PM on Thursday, December 7th. This is Logan Isaac. I expect to be receiving a call from Jennifer Barman of the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. Um, there's some confusion as to what, which allegations I made, uh, in my initial complaint and whether or not they're enforceable or whether or not they're, they were part of the original complaint and therefore any newer complaints are time barred.
So I'm doing this in order to keep better notes. Um, and I also have some questions to ask her. So, um, yeah, so this is, um, I'm just gonna keep myself busy until she calls, but as a lawyer, she's probably very prompt and that's definitely been her kinda how she's operated before. So I'll just let this run and then once we're done talking, I'll hit stop.[00:01:00]
As I signed it. Yes, I signed. Oh, there it's, and this should be her, Colleen, right at two. Hello, there's Logan.
Jennifer Barmon: Hi, this is Jennifer Barman from the Office for Civil Rights. How are you?
Logan M Isaac: Good.
Jennifer Barmon: Good. It's now still a good time to talk.
Logan M Isaac: Yep.
Jennifer Barmon: Great. [00:02:00] Um, alright, well first I wanted to talk about the allegations that you asked us, uh, to that you basically were saying were encompassed in your initial complaint with us.
Mm-hmm. So we, uh, addressed the veterans,
Logan M Isaac: the discrimination based on being a veteran. That's correct. Uh, did you have any questions about that? Uh, as long as you're fine with me continuing to self-refer as a disabled veteran, you can hear it as a disabled person if you like. That's fine.
Jennifer Barmon: Okay, so just, um, I, I, you probably have already looked
Logan M Isaac: into whether other agencies address discrimination I have against veterans and I'm Okay.
I anticipate I'm playing the long game, so I wanna make sure that when all this stuff continues to unfold, that I've continued to insist on, um, there is no bifurcation in my mind or in any reasonable person's mind between my disability and my military service. Mm-hmm. So that's just, I, I will continue to [00:03:00] state that.
Uh, but I understand currently, legally I'm only protected because I'm disabled. Right. For our, for the laws that we enforce, I dunno. At the time of my allegation. Correct. Okay.
Jennifer Barmon: Alright, so moving on to, um, another one, which was, you stated in the email that upon asserting my rights as a disabled veteran. I was subjected to increased bias, harassment and discrimination.
Um, I reported this to the university, which did nothing to intervene or address. And then I was referred to non-academic program that provides counseling and guidance and you cite to three CFR, uh, part 1 0 4 47 B, however, you were denied those services. Um, so, uh, as I wrote in my email to you, we only, the 10 day window is just to kind of clarify whether we've gotten something [00:04:00] wrong with your allegations not to add new allegations.
So I looked at the, the complaints that you filed, um, for OCR 11 17 2 4 7 6, and I didn't really see where this was mentioned. And is there a place you wanna point me to where you mentioned it?
Logan M Isaac: Um, no. Um. As, uh, as a victim of discrimination, um, who has come upon these rights by chance, um, the burden that that place is upon me seems unreasonable.
So I did what I thought and it was my understanding I was to do, which was to do it internally that fell apart. I then referred to the Department of Labor because at the time I was an employee. Um, at no point has any federal agency been able to articulate to me what all allegations or what of [00:05:00] the piles and piles of anecdotal evidence that I have of my own experience, as well as the evidence that I am able to provide.
Um. That has been relayed to me by other disabled veterans, um, of their treatment at Duke. Um, so I don't know. So I have, I literally have piles of anecdotal evidence, even just for myself. In fact, I have 70, 70, 70 some odd page document that I called my narrative document that I supplied to the DOL, that then, at least in terms of admissions, got referred to the DOE, so, and so I'll put that on pause as to whether what gets transferred from the DOL and how or if.
But there are the, the two specific allegations I made were the ones that seemed most cogent to the Department of Education, however, are you talking about the ones you put in your, um, complaint exclusion and [00:06:00] discrimination? Yes. Okay. Um. Now, I did not know what a systemic issue was at the time of my filing in September 15th, or the other dismissed cases that I had.
Um, I didn't know what a systemic issue was with the DOL. Um, and so in reading that, now, I can't turn back the clock. I understand that, but I believe it's, uh, it's, it can be established in fact that there's systemic issues at Duke that should be investigated thoroughly. The Department of Labor did not investigate, they conducted a compliance review.
So I'm still trying to get somebody, well, anyway, that's not within your, uh, jurisdiction, so. Well,
Jennifer Barmon: what I was gonna say is if you know, if it's a new allegation, um, that you want OCR to investigate, you can file a complaint, a new complaint. Alleging any new allegations. The, the issue with the 10 day is just to clarify the allegations that you wrote, wrote in your complaint, not [00:07:00] to add additional ones?
Yes. If there are additional ones, you can file new complaints.
Logan M Isaac: That would be time barred. But it's, uh, one of the things in there that I, that I put in the email was, was retaliation. Um, and that was directly where, where did
Jennifer Barmon: you put that?
Logan M Isaac: Not in the original complaint. In my email.
Jennifer Barmon: I'm, I'm looking, hold
Logan M Isaac: on.
Since filing your email dated, um, October 14th, uh, uh, upon starting my rights as a disabled veteran, I subjected to increased bias harassment, discrimination by other employees. Um, I could name specifics, but yes, I put that in my email. Even if it wasn't in the original complaint. I didn't cite retaliation, specifically Uhhuh, but that's what I think would be relevant.
Jennifer Barmon: So again, you know, unless if it's not put in the original complaint, um, [00:08:00] then that wouldn't be something we could address through this OCR complaint.
Logan M Isaac: Um, so that would be something if you wanted to file a new complaint, you could do Right. My concern would be that it would then be time barred, um, which create effectively creates a burden upon the victim.
And if this goes to court, I'm, I wanna make sure that I'm saying that every time you and I converse and anytime that anything goes in writing, because that, that, that's not appropriate for a victim to have to know the law to the extent that I have, um, particularly for veterans. But they're not protected, so we can't really talk about them.
So for me to know the law and then give you everything that you need, um, in. Uh, a a moment of duress, social, economic, or even like physical duress seems to me to be unreasonable. So I understand your limitations, but Okay. I anticipate challenging them.
Jennifer Barmon: Okay. And, um, you can [00:09:00] file in court, uh, just FYI, I am not sure if you're aware of this or not.
Sure. But, um, you don't have to go through administrative processes to file in court.
Logan M Isaac: I don't have the money. So is there,
Jennifer Barmon: you know, that already. I,
Logan M Isaac: I can't afford it.
Jennifer Barmon: Oh, okay. I just wanted to let you know, 'cause some, some complainants think that, um, they have to, there is some that there is a requirement under the age act, but not under, um, section 5 0 4, that complainants
Logan M Isaac: Yep.
Do not
Jennifer Barmon: need to go through our administrative process
Logan M Isaac: before going to court. Okay. I, I simply can't afford it. I'm trying to exhaust all of my, uh, uh, citizens' rights before I finally go to court because I, I can't afford that. Mm-hmm.
Jennifer Barmon: Okay. So in terms of that allegation, um, that's not something we're gonna be able to look at in this OCR complaint investigation, so you understand that?
Logan M Isaac: Uh, yes. [00:10:00] Yes. Okay.
Jennifer Barmon: And then similarly, um, the next one. Now I think, um, this one I was, I was a little unclear with your most recent email. It seemed you acknowledged that, um, that the, your allegation regard to 34 CFR part 1 0 4 60, that that was, um, something that is more of a, a, an issue basically that regulation, um, is about if.
The secretary finds a violation, finds that a recipient has discriminated, then they are required to undergo certain things and, and that falls within that. So we haven't found any, uh, we haven't made any findings, so that wouldn't be something we would look at at this stage. Do you, do you see what I'm saying?
Logan M Isaac: I just wanna make sure [00:11:00] I'm on the same email. Six C woefully excluding, um, you
Jennifer Barmon: said, um, I see it in that, in your read, the lack of public, a access and scrutiny as a material fact, which will come up in it. Our own investigation, and I mentioned it only as a courtesy, it only affects me indirectly as a member of the public.
Mm-hmm.
Logan M Isaac: But it is a
Jennifer Barmon: violation on the part of the university
Logan M Isaac: nonetheless. Oh, yeah. You will find, if you investigate thoroughly that. The university has excluded myself and others from, um, the practices of the university, uh, from public record. Um, they've even, it seems as though they've successfully suppressed the story of a, a veteran suicide in 2008.
Um, there's no news stories about it that the, the eulogy that was performed at Duke Chapel was not recorded. Um, so that, like, if you look, you'll find it.
Jennifer Barmon: So, um, that's not something that we would open up for investigation because it's that regulation [00:12:00] has to do with if, uh, the secretary or our office finds that the recipient has discriminated against persons with disabilities mm-hmm.
Then under 1 0 4 6 C, they shall within one year, um, do the following steps. Mm-hmm.
Logan M Isaac: So that that doesn't
Jennifer Barmon: get triggered until a violation's been found.
Logan M Isaac: Gotcha.
Jennifer Barmon: Okay. Okay. Um, all right. I, I also, um, wanted to ask a couple questions about the timeline
Logan M Isaac: Sure.
Jennifer Barmon: Regarding the current allegation. Gimme one second.
Okay. Okay. So, um, you wrote that on February 23rd, 2016, Ross Wagner told you that your, um, THD application had been [00:13:00] denied. Is that correct?
Logan M Isaac: Yes. Okay.
Jennifer Barmon: And then you also provided OCR with a letter dated February 25th, 2017, stating that your application had been denied. Do you remember when you received that letter?
Logan M Isaac: Uh, I believe, uh, I'll have to check, but, um, the, so the, was it around that
Jennifer Barmon: time?
Logan M Isaac: No, it was, um. April, I think, let me look it up real quick. Would it be in this one? Okay. Um, no, I have it in my timeline. Um, so the, all the admissions stuff came in, uh, in case you're interested, I filed my internal complaint with, um, the Office of Institutional Equity at Duke.
Um, and I told them about the, um, the employment related stuff. At the end of that interview by Cynthia Clinton, she asked me, is there anything else? And I was interviewed in June by her, where's my timeline? I was interviewed in June [00:14:00] and recently, so what happened was. Um, I just, I, I was told by email that I didn't make it in, and then the, the 25th came and went.
Um, and we got in. You were told
Jennifer Barmon: by email and, and that's what you're talking about February 23rd?
Logan M Isaac: That's correct. Okay. I did not receive a formal letter of rejection until I'm looking that up, but I brought that up internally because it looked very suspicious that, um, and someone later in admissions told me that I was the only one that reported a problem receiving the letter.
And as someone who's already been treated differently, I see a pattern and I, I want to know was my, was my application treated differently in any way? And when she said, and the admissions person said, no one else has reported a problem, then I thought to myself, well, either some software's effed up or something happened in the process that, that, um, that my application got a hiccup [00:15:00] and others didn't.
I'm just looking for the date. Okay. When I finally received the actual formal indication, um, where is it? Where did I finally get it? Listen, it would've been in March into April. I have to look up the, so I wrote on my own notes, March 30th is when Paige Anderson of the admissions office tells me that my THD application was processed differently.
Um, I have to go back to my email. I, I think it's gonna be courageous, coward. Um, so I, I just asked sometime in March, clearly, um, you know, can I get my rejection letter? And then when they sent it to me, it was dated the 25th, and I said, wait a minute, you know that I didn't get it then. And so there's this back and forth about when was this generated or not?
When was it generated? Because the metadata. That Adobe was giving me on my PDF [00:16:00] was the same day, like it was generated that day and someone just typed in February 25th and that's why it seems suspicious Anderson. Mm-hmm. Page Anderson. Um, and so I mentioned that to Cynthia Clinton in June when I brought up the employment, uh, stuff.
And then they somehow magically made that their top item on their final report make, and it seemed that they were trying to paint me as being disgruntled about not getting into the THD program. And that continues to be the narrative, um, where I, I was asked what else I, I noticed that was weird. I told them.
And then, um, when the DOL tried to investigate their lawyers were very clear, that's not your jurisdiction. And that's when I got referred to. The d you guys, and now I'm, I'm sure that the university has been, uh, informed that you, you've opened an investigation that will, their, their [00:17:00] claim, which they will have to establish in some kind of factual way, is that it's really just me being pissed off about not getting into the THD program.
Um, so
Jennifer Barmon: you, you did, you, you, you said you got the letter in March or April?
Logan M Isaac: I'm looking that up right now. Um, okay. I was told March 30th, and I can forward you the emails. Um, and I mean, you just have to take it on faith and I'm not lying to you, but I can support what I'm claiming. Um, yeah, we had some back and forth.
Yeah. Late March. When did I actually get the letter? I finally March 30th. Still nothing. Oh, no, they sent it separately. Okay. So it would've been before, um, admissions. Let's try that. Would've been March 13th? Nope. Oh, but it was, yeah, it was 16. I, I'm having difficulty finding where I [00:18:00] actually was finally sent the letter.
Well, I know I got it. I just can't find the date.
That's not them. Admissions. Oh, here we go. Here we go. March, March 30th, 2016, I was sent the letter and it was dated February 25th. And I, I saw that as problematic. So, um, you indicated that the first time
Jennifer Barmon: you. Learned that the denial of your application was discriminatory based on disability, was in November 25th, 16.
Yep. You received the letter from the university's office for institutional equity dated November 9th, and you said that, um, when you [00:19:00] read, and this is a quote from a letter, Dr. Wagner indicated there were concerns regarding whether you were equipped to perform doctoral research with Duke Divinity faculty, that that made you realize disability discrimination
Logan M Isaac: had occurred.
Uh, how did that put
Jennifer Barmon: you on notice that discrimination based on your disability had occurred?
Logan M Isaac: It heightened the appearance of it. Yes. Um, how so? A one facet of the employment discrimination claim, um, included the registrar, who is my hiring manager, um, giving me half, uh, uh, well, so. Spring of 2016, I was given a teaching assignment, a teaching assistant position section.
Um, my, I was given the only evening teaching section that I knew of, and I was also a student there, and we never had [00:20:00] teaching sections at night. Um, I was given the only evening section and I was given half the number of students that appeared to me, uh, to be what the EEOC calls under utilization. It seemed that I was not trusted to teach students, so I was kept off in a corner.
I was given a, a a section at night at seven o'clock. Students had referenced that they didn't like coming in in the evening. Some of them, it worked for their schedule, but a vast majority of them said, I didn't really pick this. Um, and then in the midst of the internal inquiry. Uh, the registrar who was no longer an employee by the time, uh, the DOL interviewed her, but she got contractor supplied representation anyway.
Um, she said Logan should be happy, um, that he got ha that he got paid the same amount for half the work. And she said, um, Logan doesn't have much teaching experience. Um, the second claim [00:21:00] is false.
Jennifer Barmon: Wait, but he should be happy he got paid the same amount for half the work. Did you say
Logan M Isaac: that's correct?
Jennifer Barmon: And then what was the other part about teaching
Logan M Isaac: experience?
Logan doesn't have much teaching experience. Okay. By the time I took that teaching assistant position, I had already accumulated, um, four, four semesters of unsupervised undergraduate education at Methodist University. It was on my resume. Robins should have known it because I gave it to her. Um. And so it looked like she hadn't read my resume and had made some decision based on something other than facts or merit.
Um, and so that was the first time, is this the registrar did this? That's correct. Okay. Um, so that was the first time that I thought maybe they're thinking about me primarily as someone with P-P-T-S-D and not someone who is a qualified educator. [00:22:00] Um, in one of my emails to you, I stated, um, another year, prior year when I applied, I was interviewed.
Um, they ended up going with, I can't remember. I, I have a list of the people that I led in, um, but I didn't get wait listed or anything. And that's fine. I mean, it happens all the time. Um, then this second time, uh, when I, by the time I applied, I, I applied at the end of 2000. 15. And that summer I had appeared on this major publication for Christians called Christianity Today.
Um, and that magazine used, um, an image of me and language that I did not approve of that said war torn and an image looked very despondent. Um, they did not, I, I don't know, that was really effed up. Um, but so I became much more aligned with my diagnosis that same summer that I reapplied. And so my diagnosis takes center stage [00:23:00] instead of looking at my resume, for example.
Um, they, it seems as though there's reason to suspect that I, for many people have become a poster boy for PTSD and not someone who's qualified to do the work that they're applying for. Um, so by November when I got their report, not only was I already seeing the pattern. By, by the time in November when I got the OI internal final report, the narrative had already been pushed that Logan is unhappy about getting in, about getting rejected, and he is just trying to, I don't know, I don't know what, um, get other people see it, feel, I don't know what, what the conclusion of that is.
But, um, so when I saw the words not equipped for doctoral doctoral research, I knew that that was measurable. And I knew that I was qualified because I had faculty members telling me that they could not believe I didn't get in. I had already had a solid publication record. [00:24:00] I had presented academic papers at academic conferences by invitation.
I had published in peer reviewed, um, um, articles in, in in hard paper journals. Um, and many of their applicants haven't had that same experience. I also already had teaching experience. I knew I wanted to teach, so it wasn't like I'd be getting a PhD or a PhD. To discover whether or not I liked it, I knew it and I knew I had the qualifications for it.
I'd already done it. I'd already performed, uh, to the, uh, academic standards, uh, of publication. I was well ahead of my peers and somehow, um, I, I was not quote unquote equipped. Um, and so that's, that's why in November when I saw not equipped for doctoral research, that seemed to be, to me, highly suspicious.
Okay. Um, uh, I mean, if, if you're willing to take more information, there's also a side story about a former [00:25:00] program director and PTSD and the influence she may or may not have had. Well, I
Jennifer Barmon: think that the issue is, um, you know, well the why, uh, in terms of the timeliness of
Logan M Isaac: the complain Oh yeah. File. This was a big back and forth between myself and Peter Gsen.
But, uh, yeah, David Hensel and I sorted it out. But the problem was establishing that the DOL did tell me, and you can talk to David, the DOL? No, I have. Oh, okay. I have spoken. He's my team leader. So, um, I have spoken
Jennifer Barmon: with him. We've reviewed everything together. Um, and he, you know, the, the issue was around, um, the DOL, you know, telling you that they would be able to Yep.
Or giving you the impression they would be able to investigate and then telling you, um, to file with us. So that piece, we understand the delay. Okay. Um, the question is, uh, the [00:26:00] delay between, um, you know, getting the decision in, in, uh, March and not filing then, and, and because you're saying that you didn't realize it was discrimination based on disability until you got the.
Findings in November. And that the, so the question, you know, I'm trying to flush out that you just told me about was why, what was written in that report made you think it was disability discrimination versus
Logan M Isaac: why you didn't file it earlier? Oh, academics is an intellectual affair. There's nothing wrong with my mind.
And PTSD is often taken to be a quote unquote mental illness where in fact, it's a physiological aversion and attraction. Uh, um, the DSM five now calls it, oh, it's an anxiety disorder. It's not an intellectual impairment. And,
Jennifer Barmon: well, I, I think, you know what, what, uh, in reviewing it there on its face, it does not [00:27:00] say, you know, we didn't accept him because of his disability, or didn't make any reference to your disability.
So why, you know, the question as to why that would've triggered you to think disability discrimination versus receiving the um. Decision why
Logan M Isaac: you waited to file that is, is I think the classification. Yeah. The deal. I, I took it on good faith that I, that there were other more qualified candidates and there were not.
So when I got that, I looked at who it was that they let in, and I don't know if anybody has teaching, experience, experience, few of them have publication experience. Um, yeah. There's no reason for me to act on it just seemed odd. Like yeah, admissions people kind of mess up sometimes, but in retrospect, once somebody says, oh, the committee thought that you weren't equipped for academic research, that to me talk speaks of intellectual ability.
And that's not [00:28:00] based on my qualifications. It must be based on the perceived, uh, effect that post-traumatic stress on my has, on my ability to perform doctoral research. And that that does not hold up. I can perform doctoral research just fine and my qualifications establish that. Okay. Okay.
Jennifer Barmon: Well, he is, he is the David Hensel, um, as a team leader is the one who looks at waiver, um, issues.
So I will take back what you said. Um, if you also wanted to write it in an email, that's fine. If, if there's any, you know, additional information specifically, what about receiving that letter triggered you to, um, in your mind that you had been discriminated against based on disability, um, and why you filed, you know, raised that with the DOL at that point, instead of bringing it up earlier, I think is the, the issue.
So I've taken [00:29:00] down what you said, but like I said, if, if you want to in the next, um, day or so, add, you know, write an email with any other information, you're free to do so. Okay.
Logan M Isaac: I would by, by tomorrow if that's okay. Okay. Um, and then I'll,
Jennifer Barmon: I'll write up my notes that I just took and then if you submit anything further, I can give that to David Hensel and he can determine what
Logan M Isaac: the next steps are.
Um, we haven't talked about Babinski at all, um, or the, the wider exclusion stuff. Why is that?
Jennifer Barmon: Tell me what you're talking about
Logan M Isaac: In my complaint. Uh, Uhhuh Leslie, uh, on August 26th, 2016, Leslie Babinski denied a proposed court citing fit, but suggests that my material is valuable enough to incorporate into existing courses.
Um,
Jennifer Barmon: okay. I thought that was encompassed in what you had responded to me that we hadn't gotten your [00:30:00] allegations right. Am I wrong about that?
Logan M Isaac: No, that's correct. But, um, that element of my complaint hasn't. Okay. I'm curious what's going on with it or, or if it's, if the other one is, so what,
Jennifer Barmon: um, so that was August, 2016, correct?
Logan M Isaac: Yeah.
Jennifer Barmon: And you filed this um,
Logan M Isaac: September 15th?
Um,
Jennifer Barmon: February 15th. So, um, that would've been prior to the
Logan M Isaac: 180 days. Correct.
Jennifer Barmon: Or just on the
Logan M Isaac: edge. I can look. So what, what is that allegation? Uh, [00:31:00] lemme make sure we got the dates right. Um, August. Okay. 16. I have a fun little app on my thing. 26. So
Jennifer Barmon: this, this is what you raised in your email, correct? Am I, am I wrong about that?
When you responded to the allegations, you mentioned this,
Logan M Isaac: uh, just one moment. I'm, I'm trying to do two things at once. February, uh, no, no, no. February. February. February. Uh, let's just say, uh, it's 175 days between August 26th, 2016 and February 17th. Is that what you said? Or 15th. 15th. So it's 173 days.
Jennifer Barmon: So this, you replied to whether we had gotten the allegations correct, you said?
Um. In your email dated December 4th, um, when I, when I talked about the, uh, in regard to your allegation that the university has failed in, in accordance with 34 CFR part 1 0 4 6 [00:32:00] C. Mm-hmm. You wrote back, um, that I cited exclusion of interested persons from university practices, et cetera. In my allegation re Leslie Budinski, though I did not at that time use that specific language.
Logan M Isaac: Is that what you're referring to? Yes. Okay. So the CFRI may have gotten wrong, that's why I'm not a lawyer, but, um, that is a, that seems to me to be an actionable allegation. I haven't heard, we've talked more about the divinity appli, uh, uh, admission stuff, but that, so
Jennifer Barmon: what is that allegation?
Logan M Isaac: Uh, I, as an employee or, well, I guess it doesn't matter if I was an employee.
Um, Leslie Bobinski is the undergraduate director of, uh, director of undergraduate Studies at the Sanford School within Duke. The Sanford School Houses the Committee on Diversity and Inclusion, um, which was the product of a [00:33:00] process that excluded disabled veterans. Um, wholeheartedly. I approached, um, Babinski saying, look, I've got this course.
It's been endorsed by the Office, office of Institutional Equity. Uh, I've, you know, I've already taught undergraduates. I've got a supervisory instructor if, if one is needed. Um, and this satisfies diversity and inclusion concerns and expressed values to the university. Um, and she came back and said, she or the committee, I don't know how it all works.
She said it doesn't really fit with our, um, curriculum, um, which is a highly problematic term in terms of education because black students don't fit at white. Schools. I mean, that, that seems to be a fundamental claim that led to the integration of schools that, um, anyway, so she said it was fit, but then in the same email said, oh, but other faculty members can take up, can take your material, um, and [00:34:00] incorporate that.
So on the one hand, I wasn't sure if I wasn't qualified or if there was not fit. And if so, then why was I excluded from teaching this course in this, um, department that housed the diversity and inclusion committee for the entire university? Um, that seemed to me to be suspicious. And it may have been that it was retaliatory, um, because I had already, um, started, uh, the internal process.
Um, or maybe they thought that I wasn't qualified. But again, that, that would beg for some amount of, you know, verification. Another department did eventually take it. Now it's the political science department. Um. But the, that decision seemed to be influenced by factors other than merit. And it was an educational program, uh, which seems to fall into the DOE, but, um, I, granted it's, it may not be the conventional application admission stuff, so, okay.
So I'm, I'm trying to understand you, you have [00:35:00] obviously have been dealing with this for a long time, and so you understand this all and I'm, I'm just trying to understand, well, you know the laws, I know the right, I just, I
Jennifer Barmon: don't understand what, what you're talking about in
Logan M Isaac: terms of, uh, were you trying to get a course, you were trying to teach a course or I just don't understand what you were trying to do.
Yes, I was trying to teach a course for money, um, the university. Earlier that year, the university stated in these policies that happen to have excluded, disabled veterans stated that, um, cultural competency, diversity, inclusion or values that we hold dear and this and that and the other thing. And so here I am presenting a course on a population.
It was for veterans, but I was also a disabled veteran. Um, and there it was endorsed by the institutional equity office at the university. And still that wasn't enough. My own qualifications, the support of an internal department within the [00:36:00] university was not enough for. But you were
Jennifer Barmon: denied from teaching a course that you wanted to teach.
Logan M Isaac: Is that at that department? Yes.
Jennifer Barmon: Denied from teaching a course. In what department?
Logan M Isaac: Uh, the, the school, uh, for public policy.
Jennifer Barmon: Okay.
Okay. Um, so when you wrote back and said that we hadn't gotten your allegations right. And you listed the three things. I don't see where that is listed.
Logan M Isaac: Uh, didn't I say that in your, in your
Jennifer Barmon: email on October 14th,
Logan M Isaac: uh, willfully excluding interested persons failed? Uh, um, no, I don't think I, I didn't state it more specifically, but it was stated in there.
Jennifer Barmon: And tell me where it was stated.
Logan M Isaac: Uh, the second line on my complaint on August 26th. [00:37:00] No, I mean in,
Jennifer Barmon: in your email saying we didn't get your complaint allegations correct?
Logan M Isaac: Uh, no, I said I stated them more specifically.
Jennifer Barmon: Right. So we sent you a letter stating we were gonna open the allegation about not getting into the, um, program.
Correct?
Logan M Isaac: Yeah. And you got
Jennifer Barmon: that. And, and within 10 days you responded via email telling, listing three things, three paragraphs of what you thought was
Logan M Isaac: how we hadn't gotten your allegations, correct? Mm-hmm. Was this one mentioned in there last line of the first full paragraph? As a direct result of this unlawful discrimination, which kept me out of employment, uh, and the program, uh, I was forced to seek seasonal employment at the university.
The third largest employer in my state that included, um, teaching as a contract educator in August, 2016. [00:38:00] Okay. Hold on. Lemme write this down.
Jennifer Barmon: I'm, I'm taking notes so it's hard for me to keep up.
Logan M Isaac: Oh, it's alright. So it says, as a direct
Jennifer Barmon: result of this unlawful discrimination, I was forced to seek seasonal employment.
So how does that encompass this allegation that you're talking about?
Logan M Isaac: That included seasonal employment, as did the teaching assistant, uh, positions. If I'm not, if I'm not in this program receiving stipend and a scholarship, I have to find work elsewhere. So I looked to, I, I'm qualified as a teacher. So the seasonal employment I sought was not only teaching assistantships, which pay peanuts, um, but it was also, um, to teach a, a semester long course that I pitched to Leslie Babinski.
Jennifer Barmon: Okay. And you said you were able to teach the course, but through a different program?
Logan M Isaac: Yeah. And that may be complicating. Um, yeah, but yeah, the PO Political Science Department took it on. Um, that opens another kind of [00:39:00] set of, uh, uh, events that may or may not be relevant. But yes, I taught in the political science department, the director of undergraduate studies.
There was, uh, is a guy named Mike Munger. He only took the course because of the name associated with it. And this name, uh, the person, uh, that I pitched it with is, uh, a tenured professor. And I was told by Munger that he only took my proposal because his name was on it. That same person later, and I can get more specific if you like, but, um, there was some disagreement and he made a threat of reprisal.
If I didn't do something, he would pull his name from the course and he did that. Um, I don't know how, but they still had me teach the course. I think it was just kind of, I don't know, I dunno what happened. Um, but I wasn't initially paid for it, and [00:40:00] I, I offered to do it without pay because having this person on my cv.
As having co-teach, co-taught with them would have provided quantifiable, um, career value. Um, but as I said, um, he wanted me to do something that I was not willing to do and that violated what we had agreed to do together. Um, he made a thread of reprisal, he followed up with it, and I ended up teaching without pay for several months.
I wasn't paid until a journalist started asking questions. Um, and then I was magically paid the going rate of whatever, $6,000 I think. Um, but it was only because somebody started asking questions. So you did end up being able to teach the course, and you did end up getting paid? Uh, I agreed to teach the course, um, and they accepted it on the condition that I was not going to be paid, and then they paid me, um, in what seems to be a direct [00:41:00] result of outside.
Um. Attention. Okay. Um, so you said Leslie Budinski, um, refused to allow you to teach this course, correct? Yes. And what was the course, did you say? It's called The Virtues of War. It focuses on the military experience using moral philosophy, and then the, the, the cultural competency piece was I had my students watch, um, different, uh, movies and read autobiographies, compare and contrast, and, and show that, um, uh, soldiers and veterans were protected classification, barely, um, do not actually get the, the opportunity to tell their own stories.
They're told through the lens of civilians and how that's problematic, how it's a side of oppression, et cetera, et cetera.
Jennifer Barmon: So your allegation, what you're saying from [00:42:00] your complaint was that, um, Leslie
Logan M Isaac: Bobinski discriminated against you based on disability? No, I think there's actually a systemic issue and I think it was likely in part retaliatory for me filing an internal complaint.
Um, oh, okay. So you didn't mark
Jennifer Barmon: off retaliation on your complaint to us?
Logan M Isaac: Oh, I don't know if I saw it.
Jennifer Barmon: Okay. Um,
Logan M Isaac: where's retaliation? And
Jennifer Barmon: you didn't bring up retaliation in that email
Logan M Isaac: you sent correcting the allegations? Um, no, I, I brought up seasonal employment. Okay. I had to do it because I should have, I was qualified to be in this program that pays 18,000 or or more a year, and instead I need to look for contract work.
And that contract work when I sought it was. Denied me for reasons not related to my abilities. [00:43:00]
Jennifer Barmon: Okay. So you're saying the allegation is that she did it in retaliation for you filing that internal
Logan M Isaac: complaint? Um, I think there's systemic issues in place. I don't think retaliation is the primary. I think at most it's a mixed motive.
Um, but it, it looks very suspicious that I had all this support. The OIE said endorsed the course, that it increases cultural competency for military members. Um, I, I cited the policy in which they talked about changing and updating their curriculum to increase awareness around underrepresented populations.
And somehow that's not enough. That seems to me to, to, to satisfy the preponderance of the evidence. If, if the university says that these are its values, it's given the opportunity. To, um, enact or act on those values. And it doesn't, there, there must be some reason that, that, that u that the university has, um, [00:44:00] contradicted its own stated values.
I don't know what that is. It may be retaliation, uh, maybe disability. Um, but it's an educational program and it seems to me to be based on ability, ability and disability, I suppose.
Jennifer Barmon: So what we would be looking at is whether or not you kind of encompass that with your,
Logan M Isaac: your, um, email on October 14th. If the burden for the victim is that high, then yes, I suppose you would have to.
Okay.
Jennifer Barmon: Okay. Is there anything else?
Logan M Isaac: Um, I, I don't think so. Alright. Well thank you for taking the time. Oh no, I'm sorry. Sorry. Um, can you explain the, um. Can you explain systemic issues? What would create, uh, or what findings or information would create an obligation on OCR apart from my own complaint to investigate the university?
Jennifer Barmon: When you say systemic issues, uh, I'm, [00:45:00] I'm not exactly sure I understand what you mean. I mean, we look at
Logan M Isaac: systemic issues. Uh, the case processing manual states it, uh, four times in pages 11 and 12.
Jennifer Barmon: We look at systemic issues. Um, many times when it comes to things like, um, race discipline, for example. Um, I'm just giving an example.
Mm-hmm. Um, if we see, um, uh, a race discipline claim that, um, you know, let's say African American students are disproportionately suspended or expelled from the school, then many times we'll take a system of, a complainant may allege a system-wide co. Based on that. Um, and if there's a, we can look at the numbers based on, um, statistics that we have access to as to whether there is a statistical significance.
Mm-hmm. Um, and if there is, we
Logan M Isaac: can open up an investigation districtwide as to whether or not, you know, African American [00:46:00] students are being suspended at a higher rate than white students, let's say. Okay. Um, so that example. So, um, uh, does, so I understand y'all only enforce federal legislation. Mm-hmm. Help me understand your role or even the, maybe perhaps the legal landscape of a university creating a duty toward people with disabilities.
Um, in co So, um, I'll, I'll just tell you, so the university, I learned all this stuff. I learned because I discovered that the university has an affirmative action plan for veterans and people with disabilities. One affirmative action plan, two populations. And that additionally is why I don't know how exactly to bifurcate my [00:47:00] being disabled and my being a veteran, but, um, in terms of educational programs, it seems so they could simply not, um, accept or even entertain the applications of veterans or people with disabilities or veterans who are also, um, disabled, for example.
Um, now that's full fully legal, um, unless they're, they're receiving contracts, right?
Jennifer Barmon: Um. Okay. I, I think I can explain it this way. Our jurisdiction, um, we can investigate allegations against universities that receive federal funding. Mm-hmm. The vast majority of universities do. Right. So, um, again, I'm not gonna speak to the veteran classification, right.
Protected class veterans. Yeah. But in terms of disability, if, let's [00:48:00] say somebody said, I have information that the university is systematically denying admissions to people with disabilities solely because of their disability, and they had some credible information that could, you know, so that it raised it above pure speculation.
Mm-hmm. That could be a system wide. I mean, and another, another way you can get to system wide in the university, I gave you a. Elementary high school kind of example. But another thing would be, um, something, here's an example, A real life example. Um, somebody saw that on a university's website. There was language that, um, when a student came to disability services and said they had a disability and needed accommodations, um, that they would take mitigating measures into account in determining whether someone had a [00:49:00] disability.
Now, there, that used to be the law, before a court case said, you cannot take mitigating measures into account. In other words, if somebody takes medication for depression mm-hmm. You can't take that into account when determining whether they have a disability. You can with eyeglasses. That's an exception.
Uhhuh. So this person found this information on a website. That the university had, well, that's a violation of the law. So in that case, we would open up, you know, a class complaint basically. 'cause it's not, the person wasn't alleging disability discrimination against them. They were saying they're, they're doing this as a, a class of people.
They are discriminating against people with disabilities. So that would be another example of a, a class-wide complaint that we could open. Okay. So if, if, if somebody has information that persons with disabilities are being discriminated against as a class, um, that [00:50:00] is something that can be filed with our office,
Logan M Isaac: but only if it's a protected class.
Jennifer Barmon: Yes.
Logan M Isaac: Uh,
Jennifer Barmon: and, and if it's a disability, then it's, um, but if it's, if, if the allegation is regarding people with disabilities, then it would be right. It would. But in the, in that, and if it can, if the person can give enough information so that it's not just pure speculation, in other words, they have, they can show a policy that, you know, something actually written in a university policy or if they can give several examples of this happening, um, not just one example, because then that would just be an individual complaint.
Um, but several examples, then that is something, you know, depending on the information that we would consider opening as a class wide allegation.
Logan M Isaac: Uh, how many, uh, how many individuals are required for a class?
Jennifer Barmon: Um, you know, I don't think it's a set [00:51:00] number. It depends on the allegation every. Uh, you know, case that we get, as I'm sure you've figured out, gets assigned to an attorney and they do the evaluation and in consultation with the team leader and then, uh, other higher ups.
So those kinds of questions get answered. It's, it's got definitely gotta be more than one, maybe more than two. You know, when you're looking at three, that's where you're getting more to the class, um, level, but it's not a 100%, it has to be this many. Interesting. So I don't, you know, I can't say that
Logan M Isaac: in particular.
It's not a set number. Okay. Um, um, so the, where I'm going with this is that it's the same problem I face. So as soon as you get out, especially if you have, if you do your physicals through the army, you can be discharged and immediately fall under a DA and not even know it. I [00:52:00] know. Uh, that the university has systemically excluded vets.
I also know that the percentage of vets who are disabled is high, and I know that frequently, they don't even know they're protected. How would I, and I know, I know there's single digits in terms of how many veterans in the undergraduate population, which is the high, you know, the most important for some reason in universities.
Um, and I know they also don't hire at the, the DOLs statistical, um, prescription. And this is not related to my complaint. This is just ideally helping me understand landscapes. Yeah. Mm-hmm. So if someone, uh, and I know that the Dean of Admissions for the undergraduate department has for several years simply ignored emails from several of the, uh, service branches.
I have that in writing. Um, what would it take for something to either [00:53:00] prevail in court or to create a class? Um, in order to, uh, in order to, yeah, I want to change this. It's messed up that I've got a You're talking
Jennifer Barmon: about it Missions?
Logan M Isaac: Yeah. 'cause I'm talking the DOE. Okay. Uh, I, well, I mean, there, there's other discrimination.
I, I wasn't sure exactly what you were referring to. Oh yeah. They don't admit that. You know,
Jennifer Barmon: I mean, one of the things that just, you know, obviously you sound like you're, um, trying to make system-wide changes and Oh yeah.
Logan M Isaac: Um, helps other individuals,
Jennifer Barmon: um, with disabilities who are veterans. You know, one thing, and I don't know if you know this or not, and I'll obviously you seem to have learned a lot about, um.
Many things, but you know, it's really important that if somebody has a disability, that they go to the
Logan M Isaac: disability services and register. I tried that. That sucked. Yeah, no, I know that much. Okay. And so when you talked about disabilities, I [00:54:00] wondered, now remember I mentioned Bradley Mondor. That's a prior case that has been adjudicated against Duke.
They settled outta court, but Duke has a, a history of discriminating against people with disabilities in the way you describe. And I wanted to make sure that, that just as a, a, a relevant facts seemed like what was important. You weren't describing Mondor though, though. No, I was just saying that from, you know, in, in terms of triggering a lot of protections.
Um, in the post-secondary realm, a student really needs to go and, and talk to disability services and get accommodations in place, um, uhhuh in order to be able to claim the protections of those accommodations. Um, so I was just okay putting that out there. Now your question is obviously very complicated.
Um,
Jennifer Barmon: and, you know, I am in, I would guess that would take much research and much [00:55:00] time to figure out. Um, so it's not something I can give you advice on. You know, in this, in this call, um, if, if you feel like you have enough information to file a complaint, a system, you know, a class complaint, you can, you can do that.
It will get assigned to somebody. They will ask you questions, um, with asking you for more information. Uh, I think, you know, the, the. What, what may happen. I'm not saying this about yours, I'm just saying this about Yeah. Class complaints generally is, you know, it's, it's the type of thing where if, if there's nothing to move it beyond
Logan M Isaac: speculation, then, then it's probably gonna get dismissed.
Yeah. Um, but if, if there's some solid examples or if there's policies somebody can point to, that's when things get opened. Yeah. Uh, even if the part, so the difficult part, least in terms of undergraduate disabled [00:56:00] veterans is often they don't even apply because they, you know, or they don't get in because the dean just doesn't, you know, work with the, the Marine Corps and the other services, like the parties have not been injured because the, the discriminatory effect is already in place.
Like the, like they'll never get disabled vets because they just don't give a. Like, or enough of aship to like, so they're, you're saying they're just not proactive in going to places that would, you know, encourage disabled vets to apply? No, I mean, the service branches have reached out and the, the dean has not answered.
So I got an email forwarded to me as the Marine Corps Leadership Scholar Program. Essentially what they do is they help, uh, Marines transition from active duty or reserve status. I, I'm not sure, I don't know if they do reserve status. Anyway, so they help them transition into high value degree programs.
Columbia's really good and [00:57:00] others participate in this program, and it's really flexible. The university doesn't have to give up any money or any, you know, criteria for admission. Um, they just have to work directly with the Marine Corps. And this is like marine corps.gov emails. And this, the guy's name is Christophe Guttentag.
He just ignored emails for. Something between three to five years. And I, I, as far as I know, he still isn't answering them. And I got reached out to directly from this program, this woman, um, because she was looking for some concrete answer, yes or no, will Duke support this program and he just wasn't answering.
Um, and he is, this is also gonna be enlisted veterans because they're the ones who are gonna be seeking undergraduate, um, degrees because you already have one if you're an officer. Um, and as I said, like if you get your physical, um, within your service branch, before you transition to the va, you're already, uh, subject to a DA and you don't even know it.
And if, if you know anything about the military, the last thing you are is weak or injured. [00:58:00] So that's why, that's a part of the reason why it was, it did not compute to me between March and November was like I, I was 60% disabled, but like, I still skate. Um, you know, I, I bike like I don't. I don't think of myself as disabled, and I still kind of a struggle, even though I know legally I am disabled, I'm a hundred percent disabled.
So the military is a class that, um, inadvertently is disadvantaging itself and reinforcing preexisting discriminatory actions by institutions and individuals. So Duke will never get, you know, up, you know, double digits of veterans and their undergraduate population because they get enough money from the government through contracts.
They don't need to look for GI Bill recipients. And that's why the private colleges are doing, doing it. Instead, they actually prey upon veterans because they have that money. But Duke can, you know, send out studies about veterans but never actually admit them because, well, shit, who gives a, who really cares about veterans?
I [00:59:00] mean, the proof is where the, you know, in the pudding and they don't put money in, in resources for vets. So I'm trying to figure out like what would be actionable, um, could a class. That is not legally protected or that, that sounds weird. Does a class require federal protection in order to assert, discriminatory, you know, action on the part of an institution?
So how, uh, and, uh,
Jennifer Barmon: this is just me trying to think, you know, sometimes trying to fit things into boxes in order to
Logan M Isaac: get laws to cover them can be difficult to do. Yeah. Um, I mean, that's what I'm doing.
Jennifer Barmon: Yeah. And, and I'm wondering is there anything
Logan M Isaac: with the Veterans Administration, it's all benefits. It's all benefits.
So those are earned benefits, all benefits. So, okay. As part of my service, the, the government has promised this [01:00:00] and that and the other thing, but that's very different from rights. Rights as I'm sure you're aware, is something more like a negative reinforcement. The protections, right? Yeah. I was just wondering if there was another area that you could get at it more.
No, this is, I'm literally sitting on a mountain of like, shit. Um mm-hmm. If, if we say, want to affect soldier suicide and veteran suicide, like we gotta do protections. And it, and I know because this is, you and I are literally talking about, well, I'm, I'm OI am only legally substantive in the eyes of the law because I've been hurt, not because I've done service to the country and afforded those protections to others.
I'm only recognized if I'm disabled. And I think mm-hmm. That, that disadvantages veterans A because of what it does to the, what it means to be a veteran. You know, you're broken, you're, you know, you're pity case, blah, blah, blah. Um, but on the other hand, like I now have to fi I've already served for six years and now I'm [01:01:00] essentially doing it again by like making sure that the rights that we should have, we are getting, so you and the de DOE cannot protect me based on veteran status, because nothing in the OUSC or CFR exists.
And I, that's another fight that I'm doing, but I'm also fully aware that case law is far more, uh, has a much better, um, uh, standing than legislation. Like, I mean, look at the Civil Rights Act, but if I can get a precedent in court, even if that's, you know, I, I can't sue Duke anymore, at least not through employment stuff, but like, if I can get it in case law, I know I need to get as much information as possible.
Um. Anyway, so yeah, that's helpful to hear. And um, um, I wanted to reiterate, like I have a lot of information. I don't know what information is most helpful for you to hear in order to investigate thoroughly? [01:02:00] Um, well, uh, first of all, I did wanna note I gave the wrong date of the OCR complaint. I was, I had written down February
Jennifer Barmon: 15th, that was your first OCR complaint.
So when we're looking at the timeliness issue of this complaint of your allegation regarding disability discrimination and,
Logan M Isaac: um, not getting into the program, we're using that first complaint that you filed with us. Oh, yeah, no, I'm, that's what I'm tracking. But,
Jennifer Barmon: but in terms of your allegation that you included in this complaint, you know, on August 26th that Leslie Babinski denied the proposed course, that would be outside of the timeline for this complaint.
'cause this one you filed. July 17th, 2017.
Logan M Isaac: Do we ha uh, what's the in or Well, the initial one got declined. I thought we were accepting a new one. Well, no,
Jennifer Barmon: no. I'm talking about only your allegation regarding the Leslie Bobinski denying the course.
Logan M Isaac: Yeah, that was, you filed that in this, in this complaint [01:03:00] then.
So I, I, if I'm following correctly, then my, the allegations that have been dismissed previously would still hold water.
Jennifer Barmon: Um, well, that one wasn't in your prior ones.
Logan M Isaac: Uh, I, I can, I understand that. But I will then go through my prior complaints and I had, I had just given you the wrong date,
Jennifer Barmon: so I just wanted to let you know that, that this complaint that, um, that we have is July that you filed is July 17th, and you're raising that Leslie Binki issue that happened in.
Um,
Logan M Isaac: August, 2016. Yeah, so, uh, I understand that my response is then I'll go through my other complaints since they hold water and try and find it in that way. And so,
Jennifer Barmon: basically, as we discussed, I will, um, let David Hensel know, you know, you, what you told [01:04:00] me about why the November letter triggered you to file the complaint at that point, um, versus filing it earlier.
Okay. And if there's anything else you wanna add to that, you can email me by tomorrow. Um,
Logan M Isaac: and I can let him read that as well. Okay.
Jennifer Barmon: So we're basically looking at, you know, the, the timeliness, but not in terms of the Department of Labor, um, complaint in terms of why, you know, you waited until you got that.
Report to file?
Logan M Isaac: Uh, yeah. I mean November 10th or yeah, 15th or whatever is when, yeah. That specific language equipped for research. That is the first time that entered the equation.
Jennifer Barmon: Okay. Alright. Well thank you. Um, thanks for speaking with me. We'll, um, let you know if, um, [01:05:00] anything changes in terms of the investigation.
Um, if it does continue, then um, you know, you're, you are free to email me any information you think is
Logan M Isaac: relevant to that investigation. Okay.
Jennifer Barmon: Um, and I will consider it as part of the investigation.
Logan M Isaac: Um, should I expect to be interviewed,
Jennifer Barmon: um, typically. Uh, investigations, um, involve receiving data and interviewing the, um, university officials.
If there's anything you want to be considered, you can submit it. Um, if, if you would like me to interview you about it because you feel like you have additional information, you can let me know that, but it's not, you know, typically the, the complainant gets enough to open up the investigation and then gives any relevant information, [01:06:00] and then it's about,
Logan M Isaac: um, investigating it through the university.
Um, what, uh, I've already seen a pattern of, um, concealing facts and, um, other things. So I'm concerned that their responses to you will not be reliable and I will not have the opportunity to respond to them. Is that correct?
Jennifer Barmon: Oh, well, typically what we try to do is, um, if after completing the interviews. Uh, my practice is that, um, I come back to the complainant and tell them what, you know, the university has said, and then allow them to rebut anything.
Okay. Um, now that only needs to happen if there's information that, you know, the, the investigator or attorney feels needs to, you know, could be rebutted. Um, but I generally like to do that regardless, um, just because I think it's good to give people the [01:07:00] opportunity. Um, so I can note that you want that opportunity.
Uh, I mean, the only question at this point is whether David is going to, um, you know, he's gonna look at the issue about the timeliness since, um, that HA was an issue he flagged. So that would be my only caveat in. Whether the investigation continues, but, um, I will, like I said, give him this information, but if the invest investigation continues, then yes, I will call you once I've completed interviews and reviewed
Logan M Isaac: the data from the university.
Um, uh, and what's a reasonable amount of time that I should expect? Like if I haven't heard from you, then like, it's taking longer than expected, like three months a month.
Jennifer Barmon: Um, you know, as I think I had conveyed, um, unfortunately our office is, um, has many more complaints [01:08:00] than we can handle, uh, as quickly as, as we would like to.
Um, and as you understand, because you have all that data you're sitting on, um, reviewing data, conducting interviews can be very time consuming. So, um, unfortunately it's, it's, you know, uh, complainants. Would like things and actually so would recipients
Logan M Isaac: as we call them. I'm just curious about what would be realistic given the, um, it's
Jennifer Barmon: hard to say, um, considering caseloads don't always remain static.
Um, I, I can't really give you a timeline, um, except no, you know, you can, you can check in.
Logan M Isaac: Well, are we talking about weeks or months?
Jennifer Barmon: Um, probably more in the months.
Logan M Isaac: Okay.
Jennifer Barmon: Than weeks. Yeah. Um,
Logan M Isaac: um, but you skirted my question about what constitutes a systemic issue. Does that have anything to do with Secretary DeVos's, um, guidance to avoid [01:09:00] investigating issues that allege wider systemic problems?
Jennifer Barmon: Did, did you think I skirted it? I thought I tried to
Logan M Isaac: answer it. What would compel the Department of Education, office of Civil Rights to investigate systemic issues in this case? Well, um,
Jennifer Barmon: a a every. Uh, complaint that comes in the door gets evaluated the same way. Um, it gets assigned to an attorney, whether it's a class complaint, a systemic complaint, or uh, an individual complaint.
And the attorney, um, or investigator looks at it, you know, context, depending on whether there's enough on its face, um, can open up the allegation right away. Um, class complaints don't require consent. Um, so it, it really depends
Logan M Isaac: on what the individual is alleging whether or not they're class complaints.
Do not require consent. Do not, [01:10:00] sorry. Do
Jennifer Barmon: not require a signed consent form by
Logan M Isaac: the Oh, gotcha. Okay. Got it.
Jennifer Barmon: Yeah. Um, so you don't have to go, you know, a lot of times with. What happens is a complaint comes, gets assigned to an attorney, they have to get consent if the person didn't provide it. Mm-hmm. So that adds time.
But for a class complaint, if it's clear on its face, you know, for example, the policy one I mentioned. Mm-hmm. Uh, complainant says the policy itself is discriminatory. I look online. Yep, it is. Open it up. Right then, you know, there's no need for further questioning. But if, if there's, if it's about treatment of people and you need more information about examples, then typically it's emailing with the complainant, giving them 20 days to respond.
You know, that adds time to it, but it gets investigated just like a, an individual complaint. Okay. Um, and if there's enough to raise it, if it's alleging a violation of one of the laws we enforce, and if there's enough to raise it [01:11:00] above speculation, then we open it. Okay.
Logan M Isaac: Um, all right. Uh, oh, there's one other thing.
Now, I can't remember the, well, I, I don't wanna keep taking your time, but, uh, of course I said, but, um, the, the non-academic programs thing, um, you said that it typically only is opened up if there's are, if there's found to be a violation. Um, I'm just reading the
Jennifer Barmon: language of the regulation.
Logan M Isaac: Oh, okay. Um, um,
Jennifer Barmon: what happens for us, just, you know, so I, I don't know if you know this or not, um, but we do an investigation.
If we find a violation, then we work with the university to, uh, craft a resolution agreement. We negotiate mm-hmm. With the university to craft a resolution, agreement, um, to resolve the issues that the investigation, you know. Showed were the [01:12:00] violations. Many times it is training, um, in the elementary context, it could be like compensatory services for the time that was missed.
Um, we don't do damages, uh, like, um, pain and suffering or anything like that. Mm-hmm. Um, like a court might be able to do. Um, but we, we, we can do like compensation if somebody had to get tutoring or something like that, trying to make a person whole, it does. Usually our resolution agreements don't have money attached to them.
Very rarely do they. Um, they're, they're typically more training, uh, you know, letting a person change their grade, let's say if, if they were discriminated against in a certain class or retake the class, things like that. Okay. Um, and, and that would be, uh, an agreement between OCR and the university. Mm-hmm.
Um, and then we would monitor that agreement. Um, and the university would submit, [01:13:00] you know, different evidence to show that they completed the different requirements. Um, and when they
Logan M Isaac: do, then we would close the monitoring. Okay. Um, so in a case like mine, they, let's say that you find a, a violation. What would resolution look like?
Like I have zero interest in studying in a program that treats vets like that, or disabled people. Like what would, what could resolution look like in a case like mine? It seems kind well, yeah, that's a
Jennifer Barmon: good question. Um, you know, that's something, if we did, I, I think a lot of what, um, you know, the investigation hopefully can help inform what changes need to be made, um, so that the problem doesn't reoccur.
Mm-hmm. Um, that's basically what we're trying to get at. A lot of times the investigation or part of the investigation has to happen before we can. Have an
Logan M Isaac: understanding as to what might make sense for a [01:14:00] resolution agreement. Interesting. Um, but sometimes there isn't an individual remedy. Um, sometimes it is just training or changing policies.
That's another big one. No. Would that have to focus on disability or would that be up to what I think is like, there's clearly no, it would focus on disability. Oh yeah. Interesting. And am I, you mentioned this at the beginning, am I or am I not barred from pursuing like, civil action locally? Like, 'cause you, you, y'all wouldn't take the case until the DOL had, you know, written it off, right?
Right.
Jennifer Barmon: Oh yeah. That's a good point. I, I said, you know, complainants can, um, can file with court. Um, but yes, you are correct. If a complainant does file with court, then we would typically look at that and determine if it's
Logan M Isaac: the same allegations and whether or not we would close it. Oh, because. Uh, court action is proceeding.
Oh, fuck. I keep coming up with more [01:15:00] questions. So the,
the resolution in this case would focus primarily on disability, would primarily focus on training. So if I, well, I don't know that, I don't know that. Okay, that's fine. I'm just giving you
Jennifer Barmon: examples of what types of things we do for resolution agreements. A training is, is in a lot of our resolution agreements, it's, you know, a, a big one in terms of any violations we find.
So I wasn't saying that I, I can't say anything about this case in particular.
Logan M Isaac: Yeah, I was just
Jennifer Barmon: talking about cases
Logan M Isaac: generally. So, generally, mm-hmm. I'm protected by a DA and that would be kind of the focus or the centerpiece of resolution That would be clearly what's investigated, but. Let's say I, I want to double dip as much as I possibly can and affect some kind of change for veterans as a disabled, as a segment of disabled [01:16:00] population.
Can you imagine a resolution or outcome that might make, that might make that possible? Um, so the, this is, uh, you know, an issue
Jennifer Barmon: with our process, which, um, you know, I think it's important for complainants to understand. Okay. Complainants do not have really any say about what goes in the resolution agreements.
Oh. Um, you know, so it's not something where we, you know, complainants take an active role and say what they want. They can let the, you know, OCR know they want compensatory services, for example, or what they're interested in getting. But there's really no obligation for OCR to. Put any particular thing in a resolution agreement.
It's interesting. It's completely a negotiation between
Logan M Isaac: OCR and the university. Interesting. Okay. Um,
Jennifer Barmon: we do, this is just for your [01:17:00] information 'cause it sounds like you're just gathering information about our process. Yeah. We do have something called Early Complaint Resolution, um, which is a process and it's, it's in the CPM, so you can look at it.
Yeah. But, um, that is where if the complainant and the university are both willing, it's a completely voluntary process and both parties have to be willing Yeah. They enter, can enter into an OCR, um, kind of led facilitated mediation, and that is where complainants can have a lot more, oh, actually they have complete say over what goes into the, what they want to have into an agreement and the university or the whatever, the recipient, as we call them, um, they negotiate, uh, an agreement, an ECR agreement.
And, um, that's where OCR is just a facilitator and, and we don't put anything in, you know, we don't say what needs to go in. It's a mediation between the two parties if they're able to come to agreement [01:18:00] that closes the case. Okay. Um, they aren't, the investigation continues and that, that process, um, can be really good for complainants because then they get much more of an active role in what goes into an agreements mm-hmm.
Versus the usual investigative process where, um, really the resolution agreement
Logan M Isaac: is, is a negotiation between OCR and the university and the complainant isn't a person negotiate. So what would incentivize an institution like Duke to do ECR? To keep it quiet. Um, well, I, I can't speak
Jennifer Barmon: to Duke in particular, but for school districts or universities who are interested in, you know, maybe they recognize there may be some issues, um, maybe they understand they, they need to make some changes.
Um, maybe, you know, sometimes districts, um, or universities say, oh wow, we messed up, you know, we didn't give them the accommodations they were supposed to get, or we suspended them when we shouldn't have, or whatever it is, and they kind of recognize that [01:19:00] they may have messed up. Um, other times, you know, it's a costly of producing all the data, making people available for interviews.
It's a long, it can be costly 'cause lawyers can be involved. It's a way to, um, you know, work through, uh, something without having to go into the, the long investigation. Um, so it can be a benefit for both
Logan M Isaac: sides for a number of reasons. All right. Um, at what specific point would. OCR at, at what point would I be responsible for alerting OCR that I've filed, you know, federal or not federal, but like a, um, some kind of lawsuit against Duke in terms of admissions stuff.
Like when does that get triggered?
Jennifer Barmon: Now, if it's about admissions, it's not about your particular denial of admission.
Logan M Isaac: Oh, yeah. I,
Jennifer Barmon: I guess I, if, if you file the same allegations in court, then you should let us know If it's a totally different, you [01:20:00] know, if it's a class-wide systemic issue that we're not looking at, then you, you know, it wouldn't, it wouldn't, um,
Logan M Isaac: be an issue.
Okay. It's only if it's the same allegation. Well, let's say it is, let's say, um, and you, you know, you would let us know when you did it. Basically when filed, when I filed the suit,
Jennifer Barmon: yeah.
Logan M Isaac: Okay. All right. And, and
Jennifer Barmon: there's stuff about that in the CP m too.
Logan M Isaac: Okay. Um, if you're interested. Yeah, that's good to know. I, I, I'll try and read into it again, but, um, I can't have two things at once, but I'm not kept from doing something on my own, basically.
Right. Okay. We would just consider whether to, whether to close it and it would be closed permanently if I filed to. It's not like it would reopen.
Jennifer Barmon: No, you can wait. Let's see.
Logan M Isaac: Um, lucky hush. Uh,
Jennifer Barmon: here it is on page, I, I might [01:21:00] have a little bit of an outdated CPM, but in mine, page 12, um, OCR may close the complaint for the following reasons, and then it, it says where the allegations filed with OCR are currently pending before another federal, state, or local civil rights enforcement agency.
Um. And OCR anticipates that all allegations will be investigated and the remedy will be the same as the remedy that would be obtained. If OCR to find a violation of the complaint, OCR will advise the complainant that she or he may refile within 60 days of the completion of the upper entity's actions.
OCR will not conduct its own investigation. Um, but actually no. The, the next provision down, it says where the allegations filed with OCR have been resolved by another federal, state, or local civil rights enforcement.
Logan M Isaac: Um, okay. That's not, yeah, it's not court. That's agency. Right? It's not another federal, yeah.
Okay. So that one doesn't apply. So it says OSHA will not conduct its own investigation. Look at whether it, [01:22:00] uh, was done through comparable process, and then we would just go with that, with their finding, assuming it was so, well, I haven't heard what I, what I think I'm looking for if, if I file in court, whether that's like small claims or like.
I dunno if it'd be state or, so I don't know what it'd be, but like if I file in court and I say, Hey, you discriminate against me. I want the, just as much as I would've gotten, you know, had I gone in, um, and I, I, I put that down in some court, then I alert OCR, they close the investigation. Let's say, let's say I'm successful.
Can I, I, I'm not sure if I can or should reopen that complaint and then they're back under the agency scrutiny. Or if, like, if the court finds then, or if we settle, then like, who knows? And may that, that's, I guess that's probably too much information I've kept you on for over an hour anyway. Yeah.
Jennifer Barmon: Maybe you can review the CPM because, [01:23:00] um, that's what I was doing.
We would basically look at the CPM and then determine, you know, what, what you filed and whether or not we would open or close it.
Logan M Isaac: Okay. As
Jennifer Barmon: a result of that.
Logan M Isaac: Okay. All right. Yeah, I don't wanna keep you, I really appreciate everything you giving me. Okay. Well, thank you. And
Jennifer Barmon: like I said, if you want us to consider anything else in regard to, you know, that why, why you waited till November, please get that to us by tomorrow.
Um,
Logan M Isaac: okay. You know, tomorrow close of business. Do, is that enough time for you? Uh, th yeah, I think so. Um, okay. If it's a problem, just email me. Okay. I, I will do. Okay.
Jennifer Barmon: Okay. Thank you.
Logan M Isaac: Thanks. Bye. Bye.
