Why University of Cincinnati professor accused of sexual harassment wasn't fired

He should have been fired for accusations of sexual misconduct with students, his boss said.

But he was never fired. He was never exonerated. He left. And according to his attorney, former University of Cincinnati professor Bradley Garner still teaches, worldwide.

More:Flute students accuse ex-University of Cincinnati professor of 2 decades of sexual misconduct

How could this be? 

The tenured flute professor retired Dec. 7 – almost 10 months after the administration recommended his dismissal. That was 14 months after the school first launched its investigation into accusations of "repeated and systemic sexual harassment" made by two of Garner's former students. In his retirement letter, Garner denied the charges and said he hadn't been treated fairly by UC's legal team.

Here's how the process went, according to records obtained by The Enquirer:

UC notified Garner on Oct. 6, 2016, that complaints alleging he was creating "a sexually hostile environment" had been lodged against him. He was immediately suspended with pay, and the administration began its investigation.

On Nov. 23, 2016, the university completed its investigation and issued preliminary findings of the sexual harassment claims based on interviews with 21 students, faculty and staff. 

On Jan. 25, 2017, Garner's attorney, Subodh Chandra, sent a letter to UC stating that the university had not given Garner "due process to respond to the serious allegations lodged against him." That was followed by another letter on Feb. 21, 2017, singling out the university for "abysmal shortcomings" in Garner's treatment during the investigation. Because Chandra couldn't attend the official interview between UC investigators and Garner, he included a sworn affidavit with Garner's responses to the claims.

On Feb. 24, 2017, the university issued its finding that Garner's "actions are adequate cause for dismissal." It outlined accusations of professional misconduct, sexual harassment and Title IX violations. It noted he had a right to challenge the findings with the UC chapter of the American Association of University Professors, the faculty union.

Garner decided to take that route. On May 10, the university administration sent Garner a letter concurring that the issue would go to mediation on June 6. It's unclear what happened during mediation, but the two sides did not come to an agreement.

And that's what led to the next phase, in which a panel of faculty members, administrators and academic unit heads was selected to hear the grievance. 

Finally, a hearing date was set for Dec. 14, 2017. Chandra, Garner's attorney, said he couldn't make it because he had to be in federal court. He proposed the next day, but UC did not budge.

A week before the scheduled hearing, Garner submitted his letter announcing his retirement from UC "for personal reasons." He said he'd been denied due process to respond to the allegations, which he again stated were false.

University spokesman Greg Vehr said the process worked "as it should."

Some former students were outraged that Garner could just walk away, but the university administration and the union stand by their procedures.  

Eric Palmer, executive director of the UC chapter of the AAUP, would not comment specifically on the Garner case. But he noted that, if a faculty member leaves the university before the end of a union grievance procedure, there is nothing more that the union can do.

"If a case never went to the grievance hearing and an individual was no longer employed by the university, that person is not covered by the collective bargaining agreement," Palmer said. "They literally could not go through and finish."

And that's what happened with Garner.

The 61-year-old Newtown, Ohio, resident declined an interview with The Enquirer, but Garner's attorney spoke on his behalf.

“I have never seen a more kangaroo proceeding,” Chandra said. "The complainants and witnesses were under no legal obligation to tell the truth. Similarly, the university’s investigator was under no legal obligation to seek out the truth.”

Several UC faculty members who had a connection with Garner did not return calls requesting comment for this story. A spokeswoman for the AAUP's national organization did not respond to emailed questions about the grievance process at UC and what occurred with Garner's case.

But this type of situation, where a professor is able to teach elsewhere with no one knowing of findings of a sexual harassment case at a previous university, irks U.S. Rep. Jackie Speier, D-California.

“This is yet another example of professors sexually assaulting or harassing their students and employees with few repercussions," Speier said in a statement to The Enquirer. "It is a no-brainer that universities should not employ faculty who abuse their students."

She plans to reintroduce legislation this summer that would hold colleges and universities accountable for sexual assault and harassment by professors.

Speier's bill, the Federal Funding Accountability for Sexual Harassers Act, would require all such substantiated findings to be reported to every federal agency that has awarded the institution competitive research and development grants in the past 10 years.

Editor's note: This article has been updated to note that Eric Palmer is the executive director of the UC chapter of the AAUP. It has also been updated to remove information University of Cincinnati says is inaccurate regarding Bradley Garner's personnel file.