Content warning: this investigation contains strong language and sexual topics. It may not be appropriate for all readers.

Editor’s note: Out of respect for the privacy of victims, Inside Investigator has refrained from identifying victims of sexual harassment and misconduct by name, even in cases where their identities were not redacted in documents provided to us by UConn and CSCU officials. This is part two. Please also read Partial Record: Sexual Misconduct and Transparency at CSCU, an award-winning investigation published in February 2025.

Between 2018 and 2025, officials at the University of Connecticut (UConn) and the Connecticut State Colleges & Universities system (CSCU) investigated and found that over 30 employees had violated various conduct policies on sexual harassment and other forms of misconduct.

In about a third of case outcomes, employees—ranging from tenured faculty to graduate students to university support staff—retired or resigned either prior to the conclusion of an investigation or as part of a stipulated agreement following the outcome of an investigation. 

But in the remaining case outcomes, employees were about as likely to receive a slap on the wrist—either a warning letter or short suspension without pay—as to be fired, even in cases involving serious breaches of policy, including physical touching without consent, pursuit of relationships between faculty and staff banned by university policy, and retaliation after the rejection of romantic advances. When union membership is taken into account, the disparity of these outcomes increases.

The outcomes of investigations and disciplinary measures meted out were not always easy to identify—even when explicitly asking for them through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Though Inside Investigator asked for disciplinary records resulting from investigations into sexual misconduct in two separate Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests spanning 2018 to 2025, those were frequently missing from records the schools provided.

In several cases, particularly those turned over by UConn, disciplinary outcomes were only turned over after an order from the Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC) and happened to be captured in email correspondence. Without those documents, which UConn attorneys initially argued the school had no duty to provide, the outcome of these cases—and the voices of victims—would have been erased. The patchwork of records provided continues to frustrate reporting on sexual misconduct on these college campuses and muddle transparency efforts.

Four Fired

When Inside Investigator initially published an investigation into campus sexual misconduct in 2025, UConn was conspicuously absent because school officials had not provided any records in response to a FOIA request that, at the time, had been filed 17 months prior.

That changed two months after Inside Investigator filed a complaint with the FOIC over the delay in responding to the request and failure to respond to emails inquiring about its status. 

In March 2025, UConn officials turned over an initial batch of documents containing twenty-four investigation reports and thirteen disciplinary reports. As the language of Inside Investigator’s request sought all disciplinary files for individuals investigated over claims of sexual misconduct between January 1, 2018, and September 12, 2023, Inside Investigator determined that the response was incomplete.

UConn officials eventually turned over records relating to 25 separate cases of alleged sexual misconduct as a part of that FOIA request. 

Inside Investigator also submitted two separate requests for sexual misconduct investigation and disciplinary records: one specifically seeking email records from what was then UConn’s Office of Institutional Equity (OIE), a bid to try and find an alternate route to obtain records as a result of UConn’s failure to respond to our initial request, and a second request seeking investigation and disciplinary records from a later period of time than our initial request, spanning  January 1, 2023 to July 14, 2025.

The request to OIE provided additional documents in cases already identified by our initial request, helping shed light on some investigative and disciplinary outcomes. The latter request turned up eight additional case files. Some of the case files did not substantiate claims made against school personnel. Inside Investigator did not include those in its case analysis and is not publishing the names of personnel cleared of charges against them.

These cases confirm what Inside Investigator found in earlier reporting on CSCU: very few individuals, even when they are found to have violated school policies on sexual harassment, are fired outright. And in cases where an employee was fired, it was often because of previous disciplinary records.

Of the 24 cases where UConn investigators found an employee to have violated policy, just four individuals were fired outright. Three of those terminations came from the school’s Department of Dining Services.

Alex Fiks, a residence hall director, was fired during his probationary period after investigators found in 2019 that he violated the school’s anti-discrimination policy by creating a hostile work environment. Multiple witnesses, including several graduate student alumni staff whom he supervised, confirmed Fiks made sexual jokes and innuendos that made his coworkers uncomfortable.

Multiple witnesses recalled a student expressing concern after Fiks commented to them that he spoke about his dating history and did not like dating older women “because they wanted to have sex all the time.” He also asked the student what sex with their partner “looked like.” In another instance corroborated by multiple witnesses, Fiks made a sexual innuendo about “trimming a bush” at a social gathering attended by Residential Life professional staff members.

Two witnesses separately also reported that Fiks dismissed anyone who expressed discomfort with his comments as “prudish” and bemoaned how people in Connecticut were more conservative.

Fiks, who did not have grievance rights because he was a probationary employee, was let go and paid for an additional two weeks but relieved of his job responsibilities during that period.

Two support workers were also fired for their separate roles in an incident from February 2020, in which they followed a bakery assistant into a walk-in cooler and made sexual comments. Craig Currier, a skilled maintainer, and Thomas Mitchell, a general trade worker, were let go after they followed a female bakery assistant who was carrying a cooking rack into a walk-in cooler and made sexual comments.

“As soon as the door closed, Mr. Mitchell moved behind [the complainant] and put his arms around [her] body and placed his hands next to her hands on the rack. [The complainant] explained to OIE that she immediately felt “trapped” when Mr. Mitchell did this. Mr. Mitchell remarked that he was helping [her] and then said,” I was waiting for you to back up.” [The complainant] interpreted this comment to mean that Mr. Mitchell hoped that she would back up to create additional physical contact between them.” OIE’s report states.

Currier, who was standing between the complainant and the door, then pointed to a handle that was broken but still functional and remarked “How funny.” Mitchell then said “I guess we’re stuck here. We’ll have to huddle for warmth.” Currier then said, “It will work better if she takes her clothes off.”

OIE investigated the incident for violations of its policies against sex-based discriminatory harassment and sexual harassment. Investigators found the complainant’s account credible but concluded that Mitchell’s and Currier’s conduct was “not sufficient to support finding a violation of the Policy Against Discrimination, but warrants further review under other University policies such as the Code of Conduct.”

The matter was referred to management and human resources, and school officials took steps to terminate both Mitchell and Currier.

“This is not the only instance in which you have made inappropriate comments in the workplace since your date of hire.” C. Dennis Pierce, executive director of the Department of Dining Services, wrote in a letter to Currier informing him that he was being terminated following the outcome of a pre-disciplinary conference that also involved Currier’s union representative.  

Currier was found to have made other inappropriate statements and violated UConn’s General Rules of Conduct by interfering in the work of others and “conducting oneself in any manner which is offensive, abusive, or contrary to common decency or morality.”

Mitchell was not found to have made other inappropriate comments, but was found to have violated the rules of conduct in the same way as Currier and was also terminated.

Mike Viens, an area assistant manager in the Department of Dining Services, was terminated in 2024 after investigators found he violated UConn’s anti-discrimination policy through sexual harassment and by pursuing inappropriate amorous relationships with students. OIE found that Viens brought one undergraduate student to his home where he “placed [his] hand on the student’s waist and kissed the student’s neck and lips” and, with the same student, “rubbed [his] hands on the student’s thighs” while driving in his car.

Dining Services found Viens violated multiple university policies, including the Policy Against Discrimination, Harassment and Related Interpersonal Violence, the General Rules of Conduct, the Code of Conduct, the Guide to the State Code of Ethics and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) Policy when he obtained a student’s contact information through his position.

In his defense, as part of a pre-disciplinary conference involving his union representative, Viens said he “shared various personal issues and triggers” that led him to seek comfort with undergraduate students. He described feeling isolated and believed the students were experiencing similar feelings. His union representative asked that his honesty in the investigation process and 14 years of employment be taken into account.

A warning letter had previously been issued to Viens in 2022 for taking personal phone calls at work and sleeping in a dining commons. Dining Services ultimately found that Viens could not return to work.

“Your work with Dining Services requires interactions with students on a daily basis, but you provided no assurances that you would be able to refrain from engaging in similar misconduct in the future.” Dining Services executive director Michael White wrote in Viens’ termination letter.

Resigned. Retired. Paid?

The majority of personnel found to have violated university policy resigned or retired either before the conclusion of an investigation or as part of a stipulated agreement, which often allowed employees to bargain for terms that mitigated the loss of their jobs. In total, Inside Investigator was able to identify seven former employees who either resigned or retired as a result of an investigation.

Matthew Larson, the Associate Vice President for Business Services and Chief Procurement Officer in Procurement Services, resigned as part of a settlement agreement in January 2020.  Larson was found to have sexually harassed and pursued an amorous relationship with an employee under his supervision in violation of university policy.

Larson, who did not dispute the majority of the allegations regarding the employee he pursued, was found by investigators to have made a number of comments to that employee about his relationship with his partner, including that they never had sex and that he “had a high sex drive” and “was not dead yet.”

Over a period spanning a year, Larson was also found to have frequently touched the employee he pursued, including putting his hand on the small of his back, which sometimes included rubbing and pulling lint from her breast and the rear of her pants. He also told her he had feelings for her. Larson was told to stop by the employee because her husband had seen a text message from him. After that, Larson continued to touch the employee and asked her to attend a concert.

OIE found Larson violated UConn’s anti-discrimination policy and referred its findings to management and Human Resources for further action on policies, including the Code of Conduct, outside of its jurisdiction.

As part of a settlement agreement, Larson agreed not to seek future employment with UConn and waived his right to appeal or bring a grievance. Larson was paid out 536 hours of accrued vacation time and 29 hours of accrued holiday compensation time. As a term of the agreement, UConn also agreed not to mention the terms under which Larson resigned if a prospective employer reached out for a reference or verification of employment.

“When the Department of Human Resources receives such request, it will provide the former employee’s title, salary and dates of employment, and confirm that he resigned from employment,” Larson’s settlement agreement states. 

Other separation agreements contained similar terms—allowing employees found to have violated university policy to resign under good or neutral terms, as far as any future employers who might reach out for a reference were concerned. 

Gregory Webster, a professor who held several different titles in UConn’s fine arts department and was investigated on two separate occasions by OIE over his use of race-based and sex-based comments, once in 2020 and once in 2022, was also able to resign in good standing with the stipulation that UConn would communicate this to any prospective employer who reached out for a reference or employment verification.

These findings are similar to cases Inside Investigator reported in its previous reporting covering CSCU. For example, Robert Kirsch, a former business professor at Southern Connecticut State University (SCSU) who was accused of sexually harassing a fellow business professor, signed a stipulated agreement in which he agreed to retire if investigations into him were dropped.

“The purpose of this Agreement is to avoid expending unnecessary additional time and resources investigating concerns that have been brought to the University’s attention, and to help ensure an orderly transition in anticipation of Dr. Kirsch’s planned retirement.” the agreement stated. The school also stipulated the agreement would not affect Kirsch’s eligibility for a retirement incentive.

Compelled Production and Different Stories

In their original document production, UConn officials provided only investigation reports for a portion of cases. At an FOIC hearing, where Inside Investigator learned UConn had closed that FOIA request in its system and reopened a supplemental request in response to questions about responsive documents that were missing, UConn asserted that providing additional documents referenced in the investigation reports they provided was not necessary because the contents of those documents were summarized in the investigation reports. Lawyers representing UConn argued before the FOIC that they were “not mind readers” and would not disclose records Inside Investigator believed were responsive to a request for “all records” involving investigations into sexual misconduct and disciplinary files unless we identified them by name.

The FOIC rejected this argument and found UConn improperly narrowed the scope of the request, denying access to hundreds of pages of documents.

UConn’s subsequent record production has borne this out and has shown that summaries of documents referenced in broad reports exclude access to information crucial to painting a full picture of investigations into misconduct and their fallout.

According to an investigation report UConn provided, in May 2019, a former Ph.D. student filed a complaint against electrical and computer engineering professor Peng Zhang. The student accused Zhang of sending unsolicited text messages, showing up at her apartment uninvited, surveilling her in a hotel lobby during a conference in Denver, hugging her without consent, and asking her multiple times to enter a relationship.

Investigators substantiated many of the claims against Zhang, including that he surveilled the student in the hotel lobby and showed up at her apartment uninvited.

“[W]hile they were in Denver…Professor Zhang waited in the hotel lobby for Complainant, began to approach her when she arrived at the hotel which caused her to seek an alternative route to her room, called her hotel room later that evening, and sent her 69 text messages that evening into the following day. Complainant became frightened and distressed by Professor Zhang’s behavior, so much so that she left the conference early.” OIE’s investigation report states.

Investigators found Zhang guilty of stalking under UConn’s Policy Against Discrimination. They also found sufficient evidence that his behavior met the definition of “sufficiently severe, persistent, and pervasive” to constitute sex-based harassment, especially since he was the complainant’s advisor.

The matter was forwarded to management and the Office of Faculty and Staff Labor Relations for further action. Because UConn initially only provided an investigation report, the initial story told by the records was incomplete. The discipline Zhang faced was unknown. Payroll records showed Zhang stopped receiving a paycheck around the time the investigation was being conducted, but the ultimate outcome was unclear.

Following the FOIC’s order that UConn turn over additional documents, the school provided several thousand pages of documents around the case that showed Zhang had actually resigned before the conclusion of the investigation to accept a position at Stony Brook University in New York. They also revealed a messy and complicated investigation that involved allegations of academic misconduct and retaliation involving federal grant funding, a no contact order, and a graduate union grievance.

Those documents revealed the complainant reached out to OIE multiple times with questions about the status of the investigation after learning Zhang might be resigning to join Stony Brook University.

“Is it still possible that I get an investigation report to protect myself and my program in the future?” she asked OIE officials in one email.

“It would be great for me to know that I could still get an investigation report to protect myself and my career because he is becoming more powerful in my research area.” she wrote in another email.

In that same email, the complainant said she was very upset following a phone call with OIE and referenced a “routine” where every time Zhang was reported for harassment, he asked the victim for simulation code and the dispute became about knowledge transfer not harassment. The email referenced a previous harassment case from April 2018 that she alleged followed a similar pattern.

OIE officials also instituted a no contact order at the complainant’s request, prohibiting direct and indirect contact between her and Zhang. Zhang was notified of the order on June 5, 2019.

In the days leading up to the no contact order, the complainant also contacted OIE to complain that Zhang was still contacting her about technical discussions related to work she had been doing. Other emails between Zhang and departmental officials show Zhang stating the codes the complainant says she previously left him with access to, which were related to numerous grant projects, had not been provided.

Other emails accuse the complainant of manipulating or deleting code files. Captured email correspondence shows Zhang stating to multiple personnel at UConn and at organizations from whom he had a grant, including Eversource and the federal Department of Energy, that the complainant had destroyed or manipulated the code, setting the projects back or permanently affecting them. The dispute led to a modification of the no contact order and to a mediated process attempting to contact the student to retrieve the codes. In other emails from the complainant, which UConn faculty flagged for OIE as potentially showing inappropriate behavior that required investigation, she denied Zhang’s allegations and said she had previously provided the code in question, describing the claims as academic revenge. Communication also shows Zhang contacted the registrar’s office and asked that the complainant’s degree be held as a result of the data dispute, though this did not occur.

The complainant also filed a grievance with the graduate student union, alleging that Zhang’s alleged sexual harassment violated the union’s collective bargaining agreement. The grievance asked that Zhang be disciplined, stop contacting the complainant, and that all graduate assistants under Zhang’s supervision be informed about his alleged harassment.

Additionally, emails show OIE investigated whether grant funding Zhang received through the National Science Foundation (NSF) and other sources might be jeopardized and whether the investigation needed to be reported to them. The NSF told UConn that the no contact order did not impact Zhang’s ability to conduct work on the NSF award and was not related to protecting the safety of individuals currently working on the NSF award, so reporting was not necessary.

Other emails show that, because Zhang resigned before the conclusion of the investigation, he left in good standing. But he was warned by a departmental official that should OIE’s investigation find against him, the matter might be continued if he ever returned to state service.

Nor was OIE’s report the end of the matter.

After OIE released its report, Zhang contacted them with objections to the report, stating the conclusions were not based in “logic,” questioning whether the findings were biased because of his resignation, and saying repeatedly, “You cannot do that.” according to a phone log turned over by UConn. Zhang also indicated he would reach out to AAUP.

According to emails, Stony Brook University’s Title IX Coordinator also reached out to UConn to confirm the authenticity of the report. A complaint against Zhang was also later made to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers’ (IEEE) Ethics and Member Conduct Committee related to the UConn incident. IEEE found Zhang had violated its Code of Ethics and suspended his membership for five years in 2023.

Zhang later appealed IEEE’s finding in New York court, arguing the decision was unlawful and that OIE’s investigation was flawed. The court upheld IEEE’s decision.

Despite UConn’s claim that summaries of documents referenced in investigation reports were enough to satisfy the request for “all records,” none of this additional information would have been discoverable in their initial record production.

Repeat Offenses

At both CSCU and UConn, individuals found to have violated school policies received only short suspensions or a letter of reprimand, which, under the terms of stipulated agreements, often was to be removed from an employee’s file if there were no repeat offenses within a relatively short time span.

Outside of the occasional loss of a few weeks’ pay, those disciplinary measures carried no lasting punishments, and, in certain cases, appear to not have worked as a deterrent, as several individuals were investigated more than once for similar violations. Several individuals found guilty of conduct violations, including several repeat offenders, are still employed, according to public payroll records.

Frederick Biggs, a professor in the Department of English, was accused by two separate students of sexual harassment and retaliation in May 2018.

In the first complaint, the student, who was Biggs’ advisee, alleged he made unwelcome sexual advances and accused her of plagiarism after she rejected his advances.

According to the OIE investigation report, the student alleged that after she invited Biggs to her apartment to discuss a fellowship she was interested in applying to, Biggs made sexual advances. After dinner, where Biggs allegedly drank most of a bottle of wine, the student claimed Biggs went to the bathroom while she did dishes and turned on a Stevie Wonder song.

According to OIE’s summary of the student’s account, “When Professor Biggs returned from the restroom, he approached her from behind as he washed dishes, put his arms around her so his hands were on her waist and began swaying to the music. Professor Biggs put one of his hands underneath the waistband of Student 1’s pants over her hip so that his hand was directly in contact with Student 1’s skin. Student 1 broke away immediately by spinning away.”

Biggs also tried to kiss her twice after stating, “I’m going to be bad.” She turned her head away each time.

After that incident, the student alleged Biggs became “very cold” toward her and accused her of plagiarism and told other colleagues in the department that she was falsely accusing him of sexual harassment.

Witnesses corroborated this latter claim and that Biggs took other steps to have professors not support the student because of accusations she made against him. 

OIE found that Biggs’ conduct in the students’ apartment created a hostile learning environment in violation of school policy and also violated the school’s policy on sexual harassment. They did not, however, find sufficient evidence to conclude Biggs’ conduct was retaliatory.

Around the same time, in October 2018, another student accused Biggs of sexual harassment, unwelcome sexual contact, possessive behavior and retaliation after she rejected his advances. 

According to OIE’s summary of the allegations, when he learned the second student was dating a third student, he “poked fun” at that student’s scholarship, insinuating they were not intelligent enough, and said, “You are with this?” OIE substantiated that Biggs made a comment to that effect.

The student also claimed that, while attending an academic conference, Biggs often put his hand around the back of her chair when they were seated together at conference dinners and put his hand on her shoulders or the back of her neck.

She also claimed that Biggs drank too much and “bragged to other scholars present that she was “with him” and was ‘his student,’” comments she described as objectifying. OIE substantiated the claims that Biggs repeatedly touched the student, including touching her thigh and putting his hand on the back of her neck during a dinner at his house while they were discussing a paper she had written.

OIE investigators found that Biggs, who was also the student’s advisor, violated the school’s sexual harassment policy. They did not find enough evidence to find Biggs’ behavior after his advances were rejected was retaliatory.

The matter was referred to management and the Office of Faculty and Staff Labor Relations for further action, with OIE noting Biggs’ behavior may also have violated other school policies, including the Code of Conduct.

Biggs denied the allegations and, according to an initial settlement agreement, appealed OIE’s findings. Following union mediation per the terms of the American Association of University Professors’ (AAUP) collective bargaining agreement with UConn, Biggs was suspended for the Spring 2019 semester.

However, the time Biggs spent on paid administrative leave, starting in January 2019, was counted towards the length of the suspension. Only four weeks of the suspension were paid. Under the terms of the agreement, the spring semester was discounted from eligibility for sabbatical leave.

Biggs was also directed to contact the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) and successfully complete “any program that the University’s EAP counselor feels is appropriate.”

Initially, the agreement also limited Biggs’ interactions with students, requiring him to avoid one-on-one meetings unless another faculty member was present and prohibited him from meeting students off campus without another faculty member present. However, the agreement was modified in May 2019, and Biggs was allowed to meet with students one-on-one, including off campus. According to payroll records, Biggs is still employed by UConn.

Biggs is not the only current member of UConn faculty to retain employment despite multiple findings of school policy violations.

Ricardo Salazar-Rey, an assistant professor of history at UConn’s Stamford campus, was twice found to have pursued inappropriate amorous relationships and engaged in sexual misconduct.

In October 2019, an undergraduate student enrolled in one of Salazar-Rey’s classes alleged he attempted to kiss her without her consent when she volunteered to drive him to his residence after working on a project.

According to OIE’s summary of the student’s allegations, once they arrived at Salazar-Rey’s house, he asked the student to help carry things inside. After she used the bathroom and went to pick up her keys from a table where she had left them, “Dr. Salazar-Rey “grabbed” her by the waist, pulled her toward him and tried to kiss her.”

“Complainant pushed Dr. Salazar-Rey away from her by his neck and shoulder and said, “Salazar, what the fuck are you doing?” Dr. Salazar-Rey “chuckled” and said, “Ha ha, that’s my name; what am I doing?” Complainant grabbed her keys and walked quickly down the stairs. Dr. Salazar-Rey followed her to her car, and Complainant handed him his small shoulder bag that he left in her car.” the report further alleges.

About an hour after she left, Salazar-Rey sent her a text message reading “un placer pasar la tarde,” or “a pleasure to spend the afternoon.” 

The student filed a police report the next day.

During the investigation, Salazar-Rey denied the allegations and because there were only two conflicting accounts, OIE investigators found there was not a “preponderance of information” to support the allegations of sexual harassment. However, they find he engaged in conduct that might violate other policies, including the Code of Conduct.

At a meeting involving AAUP representation, those allegations were discussed.

“[Y]ou admitted that while meeting with a student on a Friday evening, you took a break to go to the liquor store and after returning, mixed yourself a gin and tonic. After leaving campus, this student returned to your home and sat in a location proximate to your bedroom while you talked. Upon leaving, you hugged the student.” a letter of reprimand from Associate Dean of Social Sciences Edith Barrett stated.

According to the letter, at a disciplinary meeting, Salazar-Rey said he knew the student prior to her enrollment through his son and “would not have behaved in this manner” if he had not had a preexisting relationship.

“However, you need to acknowledge that the relationship has changed and in this case, you failed to exercise good professional judgment. As you and your family are members of the Stamford community, you are likely to encounter more students whom you know outside of UConn. Moving forward, you need to be more careful about observing appropriate boundaries with these students.” the letter further stated.

According to the letter, additional violations of FERPA also came to light during the disciplinary process, involving a member of Salazar-Rey’s family obtaining and discussing a quiz taken by the complainant via text. 

The school found disciplinary action was warranted and issued a written reprimand. Salazar-Rey was directed to undergo FERPA training and was assigned a mentor to “continue [his] growth as a faculty member, particularly as it pertains to less concrete matters such as leadership, judgment, and professional boundaries.”

Shortly after Salazar-Rey was reprimanded in the first complaint against him, UConn’s Board of Trustees voted to approve tenure, effective August 23, 2020.

In September 2023, a second complaint was filed against Salazar-Rey by a former undergraduate student who alleged he sexually harassed her and attempted to form an amorous relationship both while she was an undergraduate and while she worked under his supervision after she transferred to another university.

According to OIE’s report, the allegations included that Salazar-Rey frequently texted the complainant, including compliments about her appearance and expressing interest in her.

In one example, the complainant sent Salazar-Rey “a video about trying to assemble a chair and commented in the video that she needed to “seduce” a male student to assist.” Salazar-Rey replied, “Why go seduce another [male] when I come pre-seduced and I’m ready to help.”

Salazar-Rey and the complainant also exchanged gifts and he loaned her personal money in advance for work she had not been paid for, which she paid back.

OIE found there was evidence of romantic intent when the student was an undergrad and that it was more likely than not that Salazar-Rey’s conduct met the definition of “pursuit of an amorous relationship” in violation of school policy.

During a pre-disciplinary hearing, Salazar-Rey contested OIE’s finding, arguing OIE exceeded its jurisdiction because the complainant wasn’t a student or employee for the majority of the incidents, which the school did not find persuasive because the conduct began while she was still an undergraduate and because after she switched her enrollment, she was working as a contractor to support Salazar-Rey’s research.

The previous finding against Salazar-Rey was taken into account in the discipline issued as a result of the 2023 finding, with Associate Dean for Humanities and Undergraduate Affairs Evelyn Tribble noting in a disciplinary letter that he had previously been shown leniency based on recognition of the seriousness of his actions and acceptance of discipline.

“Given your repeated pattern of behavior demonstrating a lack of boundaries with students, discipline at a higher level is now warranted. In recommending discipline short of dismissal, I have taken into account your candor during the OIE investigation and this process, and that OIE did not find that your behavior rose to the level of sex-based and/or sexual harassment. Any further misconduct may result in disciplinary action, up to and including termination of your employment.” Tribble wrote.

Salazar-Rey was given a 15-day suspension without pay and was not allowed to teach during the summer of 2024. According to payroll records, Salazar-Rey is still employed by UConn.

Union Policies and Disparate Outcomes

In the majority of outcomes of the cases for which UConn and CSCU provided records, personnel resigned, either before the conclusion of an investigation or as part of an agreement.

But in cases where disciplinary measures were actually handed out, union membership and tenure appear to have affected the severity of the consequences for those found to have violated university policy.

Members of service and maintenance unions, as compared to administrative and faculty unions, were more likely to be fired for sexual harassment, according to the records both UConn and CSCU turned over.

At CSCU campuses, of the 13 cases where an outcome of an investigation was identifiable involving members of a faculty or administrative union, only three cases resulted in an employee being let go, one via termination and two via nonrenewal of a contract. The remaining cases either involved a resignation or separation agreement, often allowing an accused employee to leave in good standing, or lighter disciplinary punishment, such as a warning letter or a suspension of a few weeks.

At UConn, the only personnel to be fired outright were members of service and maintenance unions or in non-bargaining classes. Two service and maintenance workers—Currier and Mitchell—were terminated, and a non-bargaining lecturer’s job was rescinded. At the faculty level, multiple individuals were allowed to resign in good standing, including to accept jobs at other universities.

Another apparently complicating factor in discipline is the kinds of policies that personnel are found to have violated. At UConn, OIE’s role only involves reviewing conduct against the school’s Policy Against Discrimination, Harassment, and Related Interpersonal Violence. That includes sexual and gender-based harassment, sexual assault, sexual exploitation, intimate partner violence, stalking, complicity, retaliation and inappropriate amorous relationships.

What constitutes prohibited conduct under the policy is shaped by its definitions. For example, under the policy, sexual harassment is a form of discriminatory harassment.

“Discriminatory Harassment that consists of unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature. This may include, but is not limited to, unwanted sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, inappropriate touching, acts of sexual violence, or other unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, whether verbal, non- verbal, graphic, physical, written or otherwise.” UConn’s policy reads.

Conduct violates the policy when it meets the conditions of either hostile environment harassment or quid pro quo harassment, which each have their own definitions laid out in policy.

Hostile environment is defined as discriminatory harassment that is “so severe, persistent or pervasive” that it unreasonably interferes with or alters education, employment, or participation in university settings. Quid pro quo harassment is defined as discriminatory harassment where “submission to or rejection of unwelcome conduct is used, explicitly or implicitly, as the basis for decisions” affecting education, employment or participation in university settings.

As a number of UConn cases show, misconduct may occur but not rise to that “severe, persistent, or pervasive” standard, or, there may not be enough verifiable proof of that misconduct for investigators to rule policy has been violated.

UConn’s Code of Conduct has a lower standard of proof and violations can result in discipline up to dismissal. For example, the code of conduct’s prohibition on harassment states: “The University affirms its dedication to foster a community that condemns all forms of discrimination or acts of intolerance including sexual harassment, intimidation and retaliation.”

Similarly, UConn’s General Rules of Conduct prohibits “[c]arrying out any form of harassment, including sexual harassment” and prohibits faculty and staff from conducting themselves in “any manner, which is insulting, intimidating, threatening, physically or verbally abusive, or contrary to common decency or morality; making verbal or written remarks that are inflammatory, derogatory, discriminatory, harassing, or that create a hostile work environment.” Violating it also carries disciplinary penalties.

For example, in January 2019, OIE found David Mills, a professor of music and director of bands, made a number of inappropriate comments directed at female athletes, including telling one female band member that he would take her off the preseason meal plan and order her Spanx, telling the same student he would spank her, and addressing female students as “sweetie” or “sweetheart” without using similar language with male students.

However, they did not find those comments met the harassment policy’s “severe, persistent, or pervasive” standard and could not return a finding that he engaged in sexual harassment or sex-based discrimination. The matter was referred to management and human resources for review of whether it violated the Code of Conduct. The School of Fine Arts found that it did.

“I believe that the behavior described above is a violation of University policies, including, but not limited to, the Code of Conduct which espouses the principles of respect, civility and professionalism. Furthermore, the cumulative impact of these behaviors, as well as others discussed during our meeting, contribute to an environment in the marching band where some students may feel uncomfortable or excluded.” Anne D’Alleva, dean of the School of Fine Arts, wrote in a letter of warning placed in Mills’ file.

Discipline is also not determined by OIE, nor by university officials alone, as the terms of various union collective bargaining agreements also play a role.

“Each union’s collective bargaining agreement outlines the disciplinary processes for their members. The disciplinary process is administered by the appropriate management and/or administrative offices, including Human Resources (for employees) and the Office of Community Standards (for students).” Stephanie Reitz, a spokesperson for UConn, told Inside Investigator.

CSCU follows a slightly different process than UConn in handling misconduct cases, but unions can play the same role in determining disciplinary outcomes.

“Disciplinary determinations are made by management in consultation with Human Resources and, when applicable, Labor Relations. Labor unions participate in cases involving employees represented by a bargaining unit when such involvement is requested.” Samantha Norton, a spokesperson for CSCU, told Inside Investigator.

Unlike UConn, CSCU does not investigate all cases internally. The school has previously retained Shipman & Goodwin to investigate misconduct allegations.

“CSCU takes all complaints of sexual misconduct seriously and is committed to ensuring a fair, thorough, and impartial review for every case. To support this commitment, CSCU relies on a combination of internal and external investigators, depending on the needs of each case. CSCU engages external investigators when situations involve potential conflicts of interest, capacity constraints, or particularly complex matters.” Norton said.

Inside Investigator asked both schools about how they handle cases where faculty retain their jobs after misconduct findings, especially sexual harassment.

“Our obligation is to stop the behavior and prevent it from happening again. CSCU acts based on the specific circumstances, the nature of the allegations, and the findings of the investigation. All measures are focused on accountability, protecting the campus community, and ensuring the misconduct does not recur.” Norton said.

Reitz said that UConn “applies the appropriate disciplinary process.”

Inside Investigator also asked both schools about steps that had been taken to reduce sexual harassment on campus and how policies have changed since 2018—the year to which Inside Investigator’s record requests date.

Norton said CCSU released a “a unified, system-wide sexual harassment policy and procedures” in 2024 and that the school’s “[primary prevention efforts focus on education, which is implemented across institutions in different ways.”

Reitz said UConn’s discrimination policy and procedures are “updated as needed to comply with state and federal laws and regulations.” She also pointed to annual reporting to the legislature and the Clery Report, an annual report on crime that schools who receive federal financial aid are required to release.

Costs of Misconduct

In a previous investigation, Inside Investigator was able to track payroll records of $528,000 connected to individuals who violated CSCU school misconduct policy.

Thanks to additional documents turned over as a result of several FOIC victories and additional FOIA requests, the figure we’re able to trace is now in the millions.

To date, employees at Connecticut’s public college campuses who were accused of sexual misconduct between January 2018 and July 2025 and found to have violated various conduct policies have collected nearly $1 million in pension payouts.

That figure, which represents a continued obligation taxpayers have to public employees even when they are found to have violated the terms of their employment, grows by nearly $3 million when the salaries of public higher education employees who were found to have violated various conduct policies but were allowed to keep their jobs are taken into account.

In total, taxpayer dollars amounting to nearly $4 million have been paid to public university employees after a finding of misconduct was made against them, and that number does not take into account the costs associated with investigations into allegations of wrongdoing. For example, in several cases CSCU turned over, the school contracted attorneys at Shipman & Goodwin to investigate and prepare reports on misconduct accusations, paid time was spent by employees to handle the internal processes, and both CSCU and UConn have dedicated extensive hours fighting the release of sexual misconduct records. In one case, UConn also queried about the costs of a transcription service to translate text messages involved in an investigation.

Eight individuals formerly employed at UConn and CSCU campuses are currently receiving pensions. Seven, found to have violated school policy, are still employed by and collecting paychecks.

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.