Name: Benjamin W. Johnson (on behalf of G. Oliver, the student)
Date: December 27, 2024
Re: Complaint Supporting Material (Timeline of Events and Selected Emails Communications)
The following statements are true and are based on our understanding of the events that transpired on the noted dates. The names of the individuals involved have been redacted for privacy concerns. However, any factual information presented here can be substantiated with the available evidence. Any omission or potential mischaracterization is due to error or faulty memory. The intent in sharing that information publicly is because we (my husband and I) are convinced that state agencies do not intend to afford us justice.
Summary of Events
In the spring of 2023, I was a student in the Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) program at Penn State
University (Ross and Carol Nese College of Nursing). That specific semester (SP 2023), I completed
all the necessary course work for degree completion, including milestones, comps, and other
required benchmarks. My academic transcript and electronic communications with school officials,
including the associate dean, the assistant dean who is also the program director, my academic
advisor, and my project chair, substantiate that I met all graduation requirements (see attachments
below).
In various correspondence, including phone conversations and email communications, the school
of nursing, via the aforementioned school officials, acknowledged that I met all the requirements for
degree completion, notably, I “checked all course boxes for the DNP degree,” except for completing
my final oral presentation. Despite meeting these requirements, subsequent events, as detailed in
the following pages, depict a troubling and contrasting journey through the DNP program,
culminating in my unwarranted and unexpected dismissal, which occurred without due process and
based on fraudulent statements by school officials, notably by the dean and the associate dean.
Following my complaints about inadequate support from the assistant dean during my project paper
drafting, I faced a series of retaliatory actions, leading to my dismissal, which occurred without due
process, based on fraud, and mischaracterized academic records. The aim, I am convinced, was to
justify the mistreatment I received. Throughout my ordeal, Penn State University, particularly the
School of Nursing, repeatedly threatened to dismiss me from the nursing program. School officials
consistently failed to uphold established policies, displaying a blatant disregard for procedural
fairness and integrity. They undermined me professionally and academically, which has had
detrimental effects on me personally and on members of my household, including my husband and
three children.
The school has blamed me for my own misfortunes. Notwithstanding that I have been in the nursing
program for five years and have completed all program requirements, the school has painted me as
a mediocre student, thereby seeking to shift the narrative as an academic issue. The university's
actions not only reflect discrimination and retaliation but also an effort to unjustly portray me in a
bad light, thereby shifting the issues onto supposed academic deficiencies on my part.
Every entity at Penn State stood against me and defended school officials. The dean for diversity and
equity, for example, stood against me. She poised herself as an advocate of the faculty. The office of
affirmative action also stood against me and protected school officials. The director of the office
mentioned declined to investigate my complaints twice. Her office communicated the adverse
actions taken by nursing school “leadership” against me. I am left without any recourse, as the
university president took the final adverse actions against me on April 19, 2024, effectively
dismissing me from the university, effectively, as well, leaving me without any recourse for appeal.
The evidence in support of my claims of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation is overwhelming.
The evidence of procedural irregularities in the way my situation was handled is also irrefutable. I
have documented every interaction with school officials and the relevance of the appropriate school
policies. Yet, there is a blatant effort by numerous state agencies to deny my justice in this matter,
thereby reinforcing the university’s conduct against me.
This situation implicates the entire leadership of the Nursing School, including the Dean, Associate
Deans, and other key administrative officials, such as the Dean for Equity and Diversity, the Associate
Dean for Research, Innovation, and Graduate Programs, the Assistant Dean for Professional Practice
Programs (also the program director), a few other assistant deans, the Associate vice President for
Equal Opportunity and Access (Affirmative Action Office), a high-ranking member of the U.S. Armed
Forces (Retired Colonel), and the Graduate School itself. Below is a summary of the most salient
events that led to my situation.
I (the student) initially enrolled in the DNP nursing program in 2018.
1. In the spring of 2023, I was enrolled in the last required session for the course titled NURS835
(DNP Capstone Project). The course is associated with the final part of the DNP program, as
students typically present their findings and submit their final project paper.
2. Since NURS835 was designed for project completion, I successfully presented my project
paper in class; I received positive feedback from classmates and, initially, the course
instructor. My project paper was still under review by committee members.
3. On February 2, 2023, before my officially scheduled final presentation, my project
chair/advisor cancelled the presentation and demanded that I redo the work.
4. Under duress, I initially agreed to redo the work, which I later realized was a violation of school
policy, given that I had implemented the project as approved in my comps.
5. On February 7, 2023, I contacted the graduate school to complain about the treatment I was
being subjected to in the nursing program, as it became evident to me that I was unfairly
targeted.
6. On March 29, 2023, the assistant dean/project chair/advisor demanded that I register for
another session of NURS835 for the upcoming summer. The course was going to be taught
by one of my soon to be committee members. I became concerned; I realized that I would
have to redo the same course work for the NURS835, which was currently in progress.
7. On both April 3 and May 1, 2023, I called the graduate school again and complained about
the demands, which I thought were unfair and too burdensome.
8. I wanted a new committee to reevaluate my project paper and to find a new path forward.
9. Unexpectedly, they tried to fail me in the NURS835 course (currently in progress), which was
related to the project that semester.
10. I received a low grade on the manuscript assignment, which the course instructor nitpicked
to justify the low score. That grade placed me at risk of failing the course, given that my final
grade would be a B-.
11. I reached out to the course instructor in the hope of redressing the situation. I asked whether
I could do extra work before the semester ends to make up for the low grade I received in the
manuscript assignment.
12. On April 3, 2023, the course instructor initially agreed to accommodate me, provided that I
submitted the remaining assignments on time. However, the facets of remaining
assignments did not depend on me, given that practicum hours and preceptorship were
based on external entities.
13. Towards the end of the semester, I found it difficult to locate individual preceptors, who were
supposed to provide certifications that I performed the necessary work for the semester. I
later found out that the school had contacted individual preceptors about me, giving them
the impression that I did something wrong. As a consequence, some of them decided to
ignore my repeated emails.
14. On April 26, 2023, I emailed the course instructor to inform her of my inability to locate my
preceptors.
15. On April 28, 2023, I managed to submit the assignments on time. I did so despite the
obstacles I faced. However, the course instructor for NURS835 decided to give me zero for
the completed assignment, which placed me at risk of academic dismissal from the program.
16. On April 28, 2023, I reached out to the course instructor for clarification. She responded by
stating that I did not reach out to her in a timely manner. Therefore, she said, I deserved to fail
the course. She made that statement while acknowledging that my assignment was on par
with her expectations. Further, the course instructor claimed that I did not know how to follow
instructions and suggested that being expelled from the program would serve me well. I
emailed the course instructor again and asked for further clarifications. I told the course
instructor that if there were any issues with my submitted work, please give me some time to
adjust them, as I thought that I did everything right. But she did not respond to that email. The
next day, the course instructor entered the final grade of B- for the semester in my transcript,
which automatically placed me at risk for academic dismissal.
17. On May 1, 2023, I called the graduate school again. I complained about the treatment I was
being subjected to at the school of nursing, particularly the unfair grading practice I
experienced. I feared the assistant dean’s involvement in the matter, considering that the
instructor mentioned she contacted her. I complained to the graduate school about the grade
of zero, which I received for a completed assignment in the NURS835 course.
18. Between May 1 and May 7, I reached out to various school officials, including the dean of the
nursing school, the dean of equity and diversity, and the dean of the graduate school, seeking
help.
19. On May 8, 2023, I formally appealed the failing (zero) grade I received in NURS835.
20. On May 8, 2023, I argued that the grade violates school policy. I noted that the course syllabus
did not state that the course instructor could deliberately give students zero for a completed
work.
21. On May 9, 2023, the assistant dean/program director/project chair/advisor pressured me to
register for NURS835 for the summer session. She asked me to call her on the phone.
22. On May 10, 2023, the assistant dean promised to award me a master’s degree when I
expressed concerns over the fairness of the grade adjudication process with the associate
dean.
23. On May 15, 2023, the associate dean administering the grade adjudication denied my appeal,
stating that I was at fault for submitting the assignment late.
24. On May 18, 2023, I provided proof that the assignment was not late and was submitted in the
understood location.
25. On May 20, 2023, the associate dean had no choice but to reverse the grade. I passed
NURS835. However, she used this opportunity to insult me in an email that was cc’d to
several individuals, including individuals who would soon become members of my final
project committee, a decision that I protested, while citing conflict of interest, potential bias,
and retaliation.
26. On May 21, 2023, the B- grade was changed to a B. I officially passed the course NURS835. I
was no longer at risk of academic dismissal. I decided to ignore the associate dean’s
irreverence. On my husband’s advice, I sought to move on and sought help from others.
27. On May 24, 2023, a former professor and former advisor agreed to serve as my project chair
and new advisor so that I could graduate by the end of the summer of 2023.
28. On May 27, 2023, I requested a new project chair/advisor and a new committee. Given that I
completed all required courses in the program, I also requested an independent study, which
would allow me to finish the project paper and present my findings without retaliation from
faculty members, which I expressly stated as a motive for my request to the assistant dean.
29. On May 30, 2023, the assistant dean/program director agreed with my request and approved
the independent study as requested.
30. On May 30, 2023, I contacted the assistant dean/program director. I wanted to make sure that
I had no more required courses in the DNP program. The assistant dean/program director told
me that I did not have to take the last required course NURS835 again, which is associated
with the project completion, given that I took that course in the spring and passed the course.
31. On May 30, 2023, I formally requested that my former professor/advisor should become my
new project chair, which would allow me to complete the project and present my findings in
the summer of 2023.
32. On June 6, 2023, I sent an email to the assistant dean/program director, requesting the
removal of one potential committee member, given that her input was used to inform the
assistant dean’s initial decision to cancel my original presentation and demanded that I redo
the project on February 2, 2023.
33. On June 7, 2023, the associate dean emailed me unexpectedly to scold me and to
categorically stated her refusal to allow my former professor and former advisor to become
my new project chair. This ended in an email exchange with the associated dean in which I
made it clear that I became convinced that her intent is to deny me an education at Penn
State.
34. On June 7, 2023, the associate dean and the program director/advisor insisted on selecting
their own project chair and committee members despite my concerns. They chose three
individuals, all of whom were included in communications between the associate dean and
me during the grade adjudication, as my new committee members.
35. On June 7, 2023, I protested the new committee selection, fearing potential conflict of
interest and bias. I was concerned and feared academic retaliation from the chosen
committee members, given their involvement in the grade adjudication dispute and given that
one committee member played a role in my previous committee and her views led to my
original project disapproval.
36. On June 7, 2023, the associate dean confirmed in an email correspondence that I had no
required courses left in the DNP program. She stated that I had checked all the boxes in the
program. She further noted that I completed all the required courses for project completion.
However, the associate dean told me that I must be enrolled in the requested independent
study each semester until the project paper is approved and I present my findings by the
traditional oral presentation. I was not concerned with that demand, given that she also
acknowledged that I had no remaining required courses in the program. I assumed that I
would have to work diligently to graduate in the next semester.
37. On June 7, 2023, both the assistant dean and the associate dean told me to work with the
new program chair/advisor (A dean in the nursing program and a retired Army Colonel) to set
up objectives and plans for the independent study.
38. On July 13, 2023, the assistant dean/program director/advisor sent me an email stating that
she noticed that I did not register for fall classes. She said that she wanted to have the
appropriate class size (NURS835). This email took me by surprise, as the independent study
had already been approved.
39. On August 1, 2023, the assistant dean/program director/advisor sent another email stating
that she noticed that I needed to register for fall leadership class (NURS835). She asked me
to do so as soon as possible. Once again, I was confused.
40. On August 4, 2023, I sent an email to the assistant dean/program director/advisor seeking
clarifications. I asked for a meeting over the phone.
41. On August 7, 2023, the assistant dean/program director/advisor called me over the phone.
The call was early in the morning; I missed it. The same day, I returned the call. During our
conversation, the assistant dean/program director/advisor made threats of dismissal from
the program if I did not register for NURS835. She hung up on me when I asked for more
clarifications about the leadership course (NURS835), which she was referring to in her
email.
42. On August 9, 2023, my husband, Benjamin W. Johnson, an adjunct faculty member at Penn
State University at the time, reached out to school authorities, including the university
president, and complained about ethical concerns vis-à-vis the situation. The University
president’s office forwarded the matter to the ethics department, who contacted my
husband via email.
43. On August 10, 2023, the Chief of Ethics and Compliance Officer sent me an email regarding
a zoom meeting and noted that she will have a representative from the Graduate school join
the conversation.
44. On August 10, 2023, during the mediation conversation, the dean of equity and diversity,
representing the school of nursing (oddly), and the Chief of Ethics and Compliance Officer
agreed that an independent study is the appropriate course of action, given that I had already
taken all required courses in the DNP program.
45. On August 10, 2023, the Chief of Ethics and Compliance Officer and the dean of equity and
diversity advised me to reach out to the new advisor to enroll for an independent study in the
fall semester, given that students cannot enroll themselves in independent studies.
46. On August 10, 2023, I sent an email to the new advisor/course instructor, with whom I had an
unpleasant and contentious interaction a few weeks prior, as she vehemently refused to talk
with me over the phone when I could not meet with her on Zoom due to technical issues
outside my control. I politely requested the retired Army Colonel/new project chair to register
me for the independent study (NURS596).
47. On August 11, 2023, the new project chair/advisor/course instructor enrolled me in the
independent study for fall 2023.
48. On August 11, I received confirmation from the new project chair/advisor/course instructor
that I was enrolled in the independent study. She also requested several items including: The
written DNP scholarly paper, information about the project mentor, and specifics on the site
used for the project. She further noted that at the first meeting, she would review goals and
objectives.
49. On August 21, I sent the new project chair/advisor/course instructor a draft of my completed
and newly refurbished DNP project paper.
50. On August 24, 2023, I met with the new project chair/advisor/course instructor to discuss
plans and objectives (there were no discussions about grades). Independent studies are
categorized as a research course—not a graded course. Such courses are typically not
graded. The symbol "R" is often used at the end of the semester, as the course can be
repeated as many times as possible and as needed to complete a thesis or a project, which
is in accordance with the email the associated dean sent to me on June 7, 2023 (see above).
51. On August 24, 2023, while the meeting was in session on Zoom, the new project
chair/advisor/course instructor requested additional documents, including the proof of
completion of items, notably the IRB. As per her request, I emailed the IRB confirmation letter
and IRB application after the meeting.
52. On August 30, 2023, the new project chair/advisor/course instructor told me to go ahead and
submit my intent to graduate to the graduate school.
53. The new project chair/advisor/course instructor worked on the project paper with me
throughout the semester and made several edits of the initial document during Fall 2023
semester. The following entries are important dates to consider.
54. Throughout the fall 2023 semester, I met with the new project chair/advisor/course instructor
on Zoom at least nine times between August and November 2023. The meetings occurred on
the following dates: August 24, August 30; September 7, September 13, September 21;
October 4; November 1, November 13, November 30.
55. Throughout the fall 2023 semester, I sent several draft revisions of the DNP project paper to
the new project chair/advisor/course instructor. Submissions occurred on the following
dates: August 21, August 22; September 6, September 25; October 1, October 3, October 8;
November 6, November 11, November 27.
56. Throughout the fall 2023 semester, the new project chair/advisor/course instructor provided
written feedback on the final DNP project paper on the following dates: September 11
(9/11/23) and October 4 (10/4/23).
57. Once the new project chair/advisor/course instructor was pleased with my progress, she
asked me to forward my paper to the other two committee members for their review. I did so
on October 9, 2023, as instructed.
58. On November 1, 2023, after initial feedback, the new project chair/advisor/course instructor
scheduled the final oral presentation and asked me to prepare PowerPoint slides.
59. On November 20, 2023, a week before the presentation, the new project chair/advisor/course
instructor told me that she might postpone the presentation, given that committee members
now have doubts about the overall project.
60. On November 27, 2023, I addressed the committee’s feedback and sent the completed
project paper to the new project chair/advisor/course instructor. Notwithstanding, the new
project chair/advisor/course instructor cancelled the presentation two days before the
scheduled date.
61. On November 30, 2023, the new project chair/advisor/course instructor questioned my
integrity by suggesting that my project was fraudulent. She called into question my project,
stating that she was not sure that I conducted the project. She referred to my results
unauthentic. I pointed out that I submitted all the required documents, which were signed by
the appropriate authorities. She wanted me to share information about participants. I sent
her a copy of the collected data, while hiding the personal information of project participants,
as required by IRB.
62. On December 2, 2023, I quit my job at the hospital, which is associated with the university
due to harassment from co-workers. Words got out that my project was denied.
63. On December 4 and December 6, 2023, a few days before the semester ended, the new
project chair/advisor/course instructor demanded that I redo the whole project in less than a
month, including during the upcoming holidays. I found her demand unrealistic, given that it
initially took me three semesters to complete the project, including, but not limited to, IRB
approval, site selection, recruitment of project participants, implementation, evaluation,
and the interpretation of results. (See screenshots below)
64. On December 5, 2023, three days before the semester ends, the new project
chair/advisor/course instructor offered a deferred grade (DF) for the fall semester, provided
that I agree with her demands for a project redo. She made specific demands as to how to
proceed.
65. On December 6, 2023, I initially agreed with the deferred grade under duress, fearing the
worst. However, I raised concerns about the time period demanded for project completion.
The same day, the new project chair/advisor/course instructor demanded that I agree with a
new set of demands by five o'clock or else I would be unsuccessful in the semester. At that
point, I realized that the new project chair/advisor/course instructor's demands were causing
a lot of stress and anxiety in me. Her demands amounted to harassment, which I could not
bear any longer. I also realized her threats had no basis, as there was no basis for grades in
the course in the first place. I noted that the course instructor did not provide a written notice
for grades in the semester, as required for graded courses.
66. On December 7, 2023, I was experiencing heart palpitations. My anxiety levels had alarmingly
amplified, which forced me to seek medical attention. I was hypertensive; my heart rate had
increased at an alarming rate.
67. On December 8, 2023, school ended. I experienced severe health issues. I wanted to check
into the local hospital. But I opted not to do so due to financial concerns, given that I had
recently left my job.
68. On December 9, 2023, I emailed the new project chair/advisor/course instructor asking her
to stop harassing me. I felt overwhelmed by her constantly changing demands. I stopped
checking my emails and other school related activities.
69. On December 13, 2023, unbeknownst to me, the new project chair/advisor/course instructor
entered an "F" in my transcript as the final grade for the independent study.
70. On December 16, 2023, the university went on break and was closed for the holidays. All
university related facilities were closed until after the new year began.
71. On January 2, 2024, I reached out to the office of affirmative action; I filed an online complaint
about the treatment I received up until that point at the school of nursing.
72. On January 3, 2024, I noticed the final “F” grade in my transcript. The same day, I emailed the
new project chair/advisor/course instructor protesting the final grade. I asked for further
clarification about the reason for the “F” grade. The new project chair/advisor/course
instructor did not respond to my email.
73. Between January 3, 13, and 24, 2024, I reached out to other school officials, including the
graduate school, the ombudsperson, and the equity and diversity department, seeking help.
Initially, no one answered my cries for help.
74. On January 9, 2024, the office of affirmative action emailed me. They said that they received
my complaint and wanted to follow up. They initially offered to help me. But they seemed
duplicitous in their demarche.
75. On January 9, 2024, the dean of equity and diversity called my house, pretending to offer
assistance with my discrimination complaint. She tried to justify the failing grade I received.
However, when I asked her about Policy 47-20, which is relevant to my case, she abruptly
hung up the phone on me. She then sent an email to several school officials, falsely claiming
that my husband and I had yelled at her and suggesting that we (my husband and I) had
assaulted her over the phone.
76. On January 10, 2024, I retained a lawyer.
77. On January 11, 2024, I emailed the program director requesting my status at the school; I
requested a grade adjudication once again. I cc’d several individuals in the email, including
the associate dean. Nobody responded to my email.
78. On January 12, 2024, the office of affirmative action emailed me and asked me not to
communicate with anyone at the nursing school as they are handling the case.
79. On January 13, 2024, I replied to the office of affirmative action, acquiescing to their request
not to reach out to anyone at the school, given that they took notice of my complaint for
discrimination.
80. On January 15, 2024, the affirmative action office was scheduled to meet with me.
81. On January 17, 2024, I met with the office of affirmative action. Before the process could
begin, I asked to know my academic status in the school. My status was not immediately
available.
82. The affirmative action office promised to inquire about my academic status.
83. On January 24, 2024, the affirmative action office notified me that I was being dismissed from
the nursing program. Indeed, I was dismissed the same day or within the hour in violation of
policy GCAC-803 (Procedures for Termination of the Degree Program of a Graduate Student
for Unsatisfactory Scholarship).
84. On January 24, 2024, I emailed a formal grade adjudication request to school officials.
85. On January 25, 2024, I received formal notice from the university that all my email access and
other amenities with the university would be severed the following week. They said that I
needed to back up my records.
86. School policy states that dismissal proceedings must begin with a notice of dismissal (see
GCAC-803), which will trigger a series of events, including various meetings with school
officials before dismissal is finalized. However, I was effectively dismissed on the very day
that information was communicated by members of the office of affirmative action.
87. On January 28, 2024, I emailed the office of affirmative action asking for an independent
review of my case. I noted that they should not have allowed the university to dismiss me in
violation of school policy and established school procedures. I argued that the office had a
duty to protect me and to not allow the school to harm me any further.
88. On January 29, 2024, I traveled to the school (a several hour trip), seeking the official letter of
dismissal. No one had such a letter. The school staff was confrontational and rude.
89. On January 31, 2024, I was informed via email (in an official letter from the university) that I
had been dismissed from the DNP program. The reasons offered by the school of nursing for
the dismissal include: (1) receiving a failing grade in a required course; (2) failing two required
courses, notably the independent study, which they said was a substitute for a required
course, which I had already taken and was told in writing that I no longer needed to take; (3)
failure to acknowledge or to accept the DF grade option; and (4) for missing agreed upon
deadlines. (See the dismissal letter enclosed)
90. On January 31, 2024, I protested the dismissal decision; I raised due process violations. I
threatened to take legal action against the school. I sent several subsequent emails to school
officials making my case as cogently as possible.
91. On February 7, 2024, the school agreed to place the dismissal on hold and to allow the grade
adjudication to occur post facto.
92. On February 7, 2024, the school placed me on a forced leave of absence, in violation of
school policy GSAD 900/906 (Leave of Absence).
93. On February 8, 2024, I reached out to the course instructor of the independent study (project
chair/student advisor), as required by school policy G-10 to initiate the grade adjudication
process once again.
94. On February 12, 2024, the new project chair/advisor/course instructor refused to
acknowledge the relevance of school policy 47-20 (basis for grades), which is also the basis
for the grade adjudication, as per policy G-10 requirements. During our brief exchange, the
new project chair/advisor/course instructor placed the burden on me to prove that I deserved
a passing grade in the independent study, claiming that I did not abide by agreed
understandings in the course. The same day, I escalated the grade adjudication to a higher
authority, as per G-10 procedures. The associate dean is the next school authority in line for
the next phase of the grade adjudication process.
95. On February 13, 2024, I raised concerns about conflict of interests on the part of the
associate dean, considering the previous grade adjudication in the spring 2023 where the
dean ignored the policy and provided a different reason to deny my request and considering
that the associate dean wrote and signed my letter of dismissal with the knowledge that the
reason offered in the letter contradicts school policy and even her own written statement in
an email to me, which she sent on June 7, 2023. I demanded a panel of outside members
from other schools or faculty members to conduct the grade adjudication.
96. On February 20, 2024, the school of nursing refused to accommodate my request, while
acknowledging my concerns with the associate dean. The school reiterated their support for
the associate dean.
97. On February 20, 2024, the school gave me an ultimatum: either to accept the grade
adjudication with the associate dean or to refer to external entities, such as the OCR. The
school also cited resource limitations at the university as a reason for not accommodating
my request for an adjudication panel.
98. On February 21, 2024, I reached out to other school authorities, including the university
president, the ombudsperson, the graduate school, the board of trustees, and among others.
99. On February 26, 2024, the school offered to have the school dean conduct the
adjudication.
100. On February 28, 2024, I agreed with the adjudication by the school dean, but I did so
in protest and did not want to be an obstruction to a fair resolution.
101. On March 11, 2024, after more than a week, I reached out to the school dean seeking
an update on the process. The school dean said that she was not available, and faculty
members were not available while promising to provide regular updates.
102. On March 22, 2024, I reached out to the university president seeking information
about the situation. The same day, the university president’s office referred me to the office
of the affirmative action, stating that they are not concerned by the matter. I immediately
emailed the university president’s office seeking clarification, considering their office is the
last resort in any internal dispute (to my understanding). There was no response.
103. On March 23, 2024, I started to reach out to external entities, including the OCR, the
Pennsylvania Department of Education, and the Human Relations Commissions, among
others for their intervention in the matter.
104. On March 25, 2024, I wrote a formal demand letter to the university president seeking
her direct intervention. I gave a firm date for a response, which was five business days. I did
not hear from the school after the deadline.
105. On March 25, 2024, I once again emailed the dean, seeking clarification of the reason
for the delay, given that the policy requirement is objective (whether or not the school
instructor provided the basis for grades). I reminded the dean that such a document does not
exist, as there was no basis for the “F” grade, as per policy 47-20. I did not hear back from
the dean.
106. On March 25, I filed a second complaint with the Equal Opportunity and Access office
(formerly known as the Affirmative Action Office) at Penn State, seeking an internal
investigation of the matter and the reason for the delay.
107. On March 25, 2024, I filed a formal complaint with the Pennsylvania Human Relations
Commission, asserting discrimination and retaliation.
108. On April 1, 2024, the Equal Opportunity and Access office (formerly known as the
Affirmative Action Office) at Penn State declined to investigate the matter. They referred me
to the Office for Civil Rights and recommended that I should stop reaching out to school
officials about the matter.
109. As of April 9, 2024, I did not hear from anyone at the school about the grade
adjudication process, in violation of school policy on G-10 (GRADE MEDIATION AND
ADJUDICATION). By that point, I did not know either my status or the outcome of the grade
adjudication. It had been nearly three months since I requested the grade adjudication for
the F grade received in the independent study, which became the basis for my dismissal in
the DNP program.
110. On April 8, 2024, the dean of the nursing school sent the decision for the grade
adjudication, which I saw on April 10, 2024. The letter upheld the failing grade and contained
false information about my academic records.
111. On April 10, 2024, I noticed that the dean made fraudulent claims about my academic
records. The dean’s letter cited a non-existent course (N685) as the rationale to uphold the
dismissal decision. I never took the course titled N685. There is no such course code in the
DNP program. Moreover, I was not sure what the dean meant by “The student progressed
through 6 of 10 possible hours in N685,” as I had no remaining required course in the program.
I completed all my required practicum hours. Among other fraudulent statements, the letter
from the dean further mischaracterized the course titled N835 as a continuity of the
independent study. I completed and passed the course titled N835, as noted in
correspondence with both the associate and the assistant deans. However, the dean’s letter
mischaracterized the course to suggest that I had a required course in the DNP program,
which is demonstrably false. I did not “fall out of cycle” with no other students, as I was not a
part of a specific group or a cohort. The dean’s letter did not consider the relevant policies
(47-20, 47-60, and G-10).
112. On April 11, 2024, I emailed the school, outlining the erroneous information
communicated in the official letter from the dean. The same day, I emailed the board of
trustees. I emailed other state authorities and school officials, including external authorities,
seeking help or further clarifications. I did not hear from anyone.
113. On April 15, 2024, the Pennsylvania Attorney General (Civil rights enforcement) called
my husband over the phone and said they only focus on broad issues, not individual
situations.
114. On April 15, 2024, my husband and I wrote a letter to the Board of Trustees at Penn
State, seeking their immediate attention and intervention. We outlined the emotional distress
the matter has caused the family and needed their help.
115. On April 15, 2024, my husband and I contacted the Governor of Pennsylvania asking
for his intervention in the matter with Penn State.
116. On April 15, 2024, my husband and I contacted the Secretary of Education, asking for
his intervention in the matter with Penn State.
117. On April 16, 2024, my meeting with the investigator from the Pennsylvania Human
Relations Commission’s office was abruptly cancelled at the last minute (6:59am). The
meeting was scheduled for 8:00am. This unexpected cancelation was overly concerning,
although it had been rescheduled for April 29, 2024.
118. On April 17, I felt distraught. I felt a deliberate attempt to undermine my rights. I felt a
conspiracy at the highest level to belittle my suffering, given that some of the individuals
involved in the matter are high ranking members of the school of nursing, including several
deans, an associate dean, a few assistant deans, the director of affirmative action office, and
a high-ranking member of the U.S. Armed Forces (Retired Colonel).
119. On April 19, 2024, the Office of the President at Penn State authored an email to my
husband stating the following: “As Senior Vice President and Chief of Staff, I help President
Bendapudi respond to emails and important issues. Thank you for your email. We have been
informed that the Grade Adjudication process has been concluded with the Dean’s review
and decision, which is final. Additionally, we understand that the Office of Equal Opportunity
and Access (formerly the Affirmative Action Office) has directed you to contact the
Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights with any further concerns, and that you have
filed a complaint with the Pennsylvania Department of Education, which the University will
respond to as required. Based on this information, there will be no further action taken and
the matter is considered closed.”
120. On April 19, 2024, my husband reached out to a journalist from the Spotlight PA State
College. But we were not sure whether it would be prudent to go public. We debated our
options. We decided to give it more time, as we became convinced that there is a wide
conspiracy to undermine our case.
121. On April 20, 2024, I found myself in a state of panic. I was not sure what to do. I want
the school to implement its policies. The policy on grading is clear. If the school is going to
uphold the failing grade, it must do so based on established policies. However, Penn State
University has refused to implement Senate policy 47-20, as stipulated in G-10, in my case.
They have also violated the student dismissal procedures, as I have been dismissed from the
university outside of established procedures.
122. On May 7, 2024, the local police department showed up in my house unannounced.
They knocked on the front door repeatedly. Initially, I did not know it was the police, as I did
not hear the word “police.” They went into my backyard. They walked all around the house.
They wrote down the license plates of every vehicle in the driveway. My son and I were inside
the house. We were afraid and did not know what to do. When I called the police to find out
about why police officers were at my home, I was told that someone had called 911. To my
recollection, no one from my home had called 911. The police presence on the property did
not indicate they were there to respond to an emergency situation. They had parked their car
far away from home. However, this is not the first time my family had been intimidated by the
local police. We do not go to town for fear of retaliation and intimidation. My husband filed
several complaints with local authorities to no avail. This situation with both Penn State and
the local police has compounded the family’s anxiety, as we do not know who has targeted
us.
123. On May 7, 2024, I signed a formal complaint with the Pennsylvania Human Relations
Commission against Penn State. However, I noticed that the complaint included April 19,
2024 as both the beginning and the end of the retaliation incident.
124. On June 27, 2024, I emailed the Pennsylvania Department of Education, seeking an
update on my complaint, given that the 30-day response had elapsed.
125. On June 28, 2024, the Pennsylvania Department of Education notified me of their
finding, which states that they found no violation on the part of Penn State University and
recommended that I work with OCR, PHRC, and the court for redress. They said that the case
was closed.
126. On July 1, 2024, I emailed the PDE and requested clarification about the investigation.
I noticed a contradiction in the PDE’s finding.
127. On July 8, 2024, I filed a right-to-know request with the PDE about the investigation.
128. On July 11, 2024, the PDE retracted its initial finding and clarified that it did not find in
favor or against Penn State. The PDE reiterated that it did not have the jurisdiction to make a
definitive decision on the matter.
129. On July 11, I met with an investigator from the Pennsylvania Department of State
about my complaint against Penn State officials for professional misconduct.
130. On July 16, 2024, I received a copy of the university’s response about my complaint
with the PHRC, which was submitted on July 15, 2024. The university admitted that it
dismissed me on January 31, 2024, and claimed that it informed me that it would conduct a
grade adjudication on February 7, 2024, given that I did not make a formal grade adjudication
request. The university further claims that my dismissal was legitimate, lawful, and based on
faculty’s sound academic judgement. The university asked the commission to dismiss the
complaint with prejudice. Of course, as noted above, I made several requests for a grade
adjudication, including a formal request for the same, which was emailed to various school
officials on January 24, 2024.
131. On July 31, 2024, I submitted my formal rebuttal to the university’s response to the
PHRC.
132. On August 13, the OCR informed me they dismissed my complaint on the basis of
duplication, given that the PHRC is already investigating the same complaint. The OCR gave
me the option to refile the complaint against Penn State after the PHRC’s outcome.
133. On August 16, 2024, I wrote to the PHRC and filed a formal request to the commission
to sanction Penn State, particularly the law firm (BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC), for
making demonstrably false statements in their formal response to my complaint about my
formal request for a grade adjudication before my dismissal on January 31, 2024.
134. On August 16, 2024, I wrote to the PHRC and asked the commission to consider the
design flaw in NURS 835, a course that was used as the basis for my dismissal in the nursing
program. I also provided additional evidence to support my complaint.
135. On August 22, 2024, the police showed up in my house once again. Around 8:30pm,
the local police came to my house and claimed that neighbors complained about a dog
barking, and they believed that it was my dog. I was not home at the time. But my husband
told the officers that our dog was asleep inside the house. However, they insisted, claiming
that the sound heard is that of a German shepherd. The officers wanted to know whether we
own a German shepherd. My husband told them that there were several dogs in the
neighborhood, and they all barked at night. The officers insisted and claimed that it was our
dog. My children got involved in the conversation. To avoid any escalation, my husband
rushed back with the children inside the house, leaving the officers standing in front of the
garage. The officers were seemingly prepared for a confrontation, as my husband could see
one of the officers interacting with him adjusting to what seemed like a body camera. My
husband also noticed that the officer placed his hand in positions near his pistol. After the
officers left the driveway, my husband noticed that several dogs were barking uncontrollably
near our backyard. My husband called the police and informed them that dogs were barking.
My husband did not see the police show up to the neighbors’ house where two dogs had been
barking uncontrollably. My husband placed another call to the police department and
informed them that they needed to stop harassing the family. It became clear to us that the
police presence at our home had no legal basis, as it was seemingly an attempt to provoke
my husband personally or to provoke other members of my household. It became a
dangerous game of “got you.”
136. As of August 31, 2024, I did not hear from the school, the PHRC, or anyone else.
137. Around September 13, 2024, I emailed the PHRC, seeking a status update about the
investigation. In a series of back-and-forth emails, the investigator for the commission came
across as irritated and sounded upset about my inquiries. She suggested that my case is
under investigation and the process will take more time and a final decision may not be
entered until next year (2025), given that I filed my complaint on May 7, 2024, and due to case
load. I emailed her back expressing my concerns, given that the university’s admission of due
process violation on July 15, 2024, should have been reason enough for an expedite decision.
I raised concerns that the delay might be intentional, as this is a familiar pattern in this case.
It has been more than a year since I have been on the receiving end of relentless assaults by
the university and its affiliates. I have been getting unwanted visits from unknown individuals
on a regular basis. I do not know what they want from me. I am scared.
138. On September 26, 2024, I filed a complaint with the Disciplinary Board of the
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania against the law firm and the attorneys who made
demonstrably false statements to the PHRC in their formal response in my case.
139. On October 3, 2024, I filed a new complaint with the PHRC, asserting due process
violation based on the specific email that I received from the university president on April 19,
2024, which closed the case outside of school policy GCAC-803, which establishes the
procedure for student dismissal for poor scholarship.
140. On October 9, 2024, the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
stated that the attorneys can lie in court proceedings to defend their client’s interests. The
board sent me a scolding letter, in which they reminded me that they are not my attorney and
I should not reach out to them for redress.
141. On October 12, 2024, I filed a formal appeal against the Disciplinary Board’s decision.
I presented new evidence of attorney misconduct. The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania did not respond to my request for reconsideration.
142. On October 29, 2024, we had an interview with an attorney for the Office for Civil
Rights (OCR) about my second due process violation and the retaliation complaint. During
the conversation and after listening to our explanations, the attorney made it clear to us that
this is a classic case of retaliation. He asked us to submit additional documents to support
our claims, particularly the letter we wrote to Penn State on August 8, 2023, and the
December 3, 2023 letter, which established crucial protected activities before the university
escalated its demands, which led to the F grade and the abrupt dismissal from the program.
The attorney said that he will contact us at a later date to set up a mediation with the
university, since we said that we were open to a mediation in the formal complaint.
143. On October 31, 2024, we sent the requested documents to the attorney at the OCR.
We also included additional information to support the complaint.
144. On November 3, 2024, we were contacted by another attorney for the OCR about
another complaint we filed with the agency.
145. Between November 5 and 12, 2024, we submitted all the requested information to
the second attorney for the OCR, including our response to a list of 32 questions from the
OCR, which we responded in depth and submitted the relevant documents to support our
answers.
146. On November 9, 2024, I filed a formal request for a review of the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania on the matter. However, I am not sure of the status of my request, given that I
had also requested to make corrections to the document filed to the courts.
147. On November 11, 2024, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education
(MSCHE) dismissed my complaint and claimed that the university satisfactorily met their
standards. The same day, I formally appealed that decision and submitted additional proofs
of university misconduct. The MSCHE did not respond to my appeal.
148. On November 15, 2024, I received the final decision from the PHRC, which dismissed
my complaint, not on the basis of the retaliation claims I filed, but on the basis of events that
occurred in 2023. The commission recognized that I engaged in protected activities on
January 2, 2024, and the school took adverse actions against me on January 31, 2024.
However, the commission referenced events that occurred in 2023 to defeat my retaliation
claims, which is in direct contrast to established law about retaliation, which states that
retaliation must be evaluated based on (1) protected activity, (2) adverse actions, and (3) the
causal connection or link between the protected activity and the adverse actions. However,
this is not what happened in the PHRC’s decision.
149. On November 19, 2024, we wrote the OCR informing them of the PHRC’s decision
and asked for their intervention, given that the August 13, 2024, dismissal letter gave us the
option to ask for such a review if the PHRC’s decision had been deemed unsatisfactory.
150. Between December 2 and 3, we communicated with an attorney for the OCR about
the procedures to refile the initial complaint or to initiate the formal review process. However,
we received mixed messages, which made us confused about the next steps in the case.
151. On December 3, 2024, my husband (Benjamin Johnson) wrote a formal letter to the
OCR of Philadelphia on my behalf, asking the agency to intervene in the case and pointed out
the mishandling of the case.
152. On December 5, 2024, the OCR (DC office) abruptly dismissed the case and claimed
that we have no appeal rights. They entered this arbitrary decision, notwithstanding the
promises clearly stated in the August 13, 2024, dismissal letter, which is based on the
agency’s own policy.
153. On December 9, 2024, my husband filed a formal complaint for retaliation against the
OCR with the office of inspector general (OIG) and other entities.
154. On December 10, 2024, my husband filed similar complaints with other agencies,
including the OCR itself.
155. On December 17, 2024, we filed a formal complaint with the human rights office at
the United Nations. We intend to reach out to other international organizations for help.
156. As of December 18, 2024, we have not heard from anyone. We have avoided going to
our mailbox for fear of news of more adverse actions from State agencies or others, given the
Christmas season and all our children are home.
157. On December 20, 2024, my husband and I had a conversation with the investigator
for the PHRC about the October 3, 2024 complaint. Dring the conversation, the investigator
admitted that both the January 31, 2024 and April 19, 2024 dismissals are in “themselves due
process violations.” However, he refused to investigate the October complaint, stating double
jeopardy. The investigator stated that the issue was already investigated in the previous
complaint.
158. On December 23, 2024, I emailed the PHRC, asserting due process violations for their
handling of my October 3, 2024 complaint. I pointed out the contradictions in their argument,
particularly the flawed invocation of “Double Jeopardy,” which does not apply in civil and
administrative cases. I pointed out that the due process issue is separate from the retaliation
and the Commission’s final decision dated November 6, 2024, specifically stated the scope
of its investigation and finding. The PHRC’s findings, as outlined in the November 6, 2024,
letter, confirm that the investigation focused solely on “Disenrollment Due to Retaliation” and
analyzed events through December 6, 2023. The letter explicitly states January 31, 2024, as
the cutoff date for adverse action.
The above timeline represents an outline of the most salient events that transpired in this case. Other
events are not mentioned here due to their complex nature, which I hope to discuss in a different
venue, perhaps with investigators or with the proper authorities. The dates provided are accurate to
the best of my recollections. However, I am willing to amend this document to reflect the accurate
dates when necessary.
This case is not about an academic dispute. This is a case about racism, retaliation, discrimination,
and blatant institutional efforts to undermine the victims to the benefits of the individuals involved.
No academic degree is worth the ordeal and the emotional calamities we have faced over the last
few months. At this point, we do not know what to do. We would like an end to the constant
harassment. We want the retaliation to end. This is unfair to us.
This situation has taken an incommensurable toll on the family. My children are mostly affected,
especially my second child, who has begun to show signs of severe mental distress. We do not know
where to go for help. We trust no one at this point, as it is clear to us that many people across the
state know us and are waiting for the right time to harm us further. As a result, the family is in turmoil.
We are afraid. Nobody seems to care about our suffering.
While the individual at the center of my ordeal (the Associate Dean) recently retired from the
University, there is a need for accountability. Penn State’s action, we are convinced, is in retaliation
for the initial complaints we filed against school officials and the complaints we filed subsequently
with outside agencies asserting discrimination. After we reached out to external entities and
complained of discrimination, the university started taking adverse actions against me, which
ultimately led to my dismissal from the DNP program. The university engaged in a smearing campaign
designed to discredit me and to prevent us from getting legal representation, while they already
activated the entire system in Pennsylvania against us.
Also, enclosed in this document are a few screenshots from email correspondence and other official
documents. Due to privacy concerns, only a handful of documents are included here. However, this
case is well documented. Every claim can be substantiated with emails, video, or audio
conversations (lawfully obtained) via phone calls or via Zoom conversations. Please, let me know
whether more information is necessary.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. We are an immigrant family from a third world country. We
know no one here. We pose no threats to the State of Pennsylvania. If you can, please help us.
Thank you.