Complaint - Bick vs. Utah State University

Case 1:19-cv-00084-PMW Document 2 Filed 08/01/19 Page 1 of 90
ANDERSON & KARRENBERG

Richard A. Kaplan (#13480)
Krystaly N. Koch (#16491)
Jacob D. Barney (#16777)
50 West Broadway, Suite 700
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
Telephone: (801) 534-1700
Facsimile: (801) 364-7697
rkaplan@aklawfirm.com
kkoch@aklawfirm.com
jbarney@aklawfirm.com
Attorneys for Matthew Bick

_____________________________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH
MATTHEW BICK as personal representative

of JERUSHA SANJEEVI, deceased,
Plaintiff,
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
vs.
UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY, CAROLYN Civil No. 1:19-cv-00084-PMW

BARCUS, in her individual capacity and as an Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner
employee of Utah State University, MELISSA
TEHEE, in her individual capacity and as an
employee of Utah State University,
GRETCHEN PEACOCK, as an employee of
Utah State University, TAMARA
ELLINGTON, as an individual, AMANDA
BLUME, as an individual, and DOES 1-20,
Defendants.
1
Matthew Bick, as personal representative of Jerusha Sanjeevi, deceased, by and through
counsel, hereby complains and alleges against Defendants Utah State University, Carolyn
Barcus, Melissa Tehee, Gretchen Peacock, Tamara Ellington, Amanda Blume and Does 1-20
(collectively “Defendants”) as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. This is a case about a university clinical and counseling psychology training
program that knowingly allowed one of its students to be verbally abused, intimidated and
subjected to cultural and racial discrimination by favored students over the course of eight
months, until she was rendered so emotionally devastated and hopeless that she committed
suicide. The clinical training faculty members most directly involved in this case were mired at
the time in unethical, compromising “dual” relationships with the victim’s abusers, which
precluded or substantially interfered with sound, objective, professional judgment and
responsible, legally-required action. The faculty and administration as a whole never came to
grips with the nature and extent of the unethical and illegal misconduct occurring under its
auspices and subject to its oversight responsibility and control. They failed to act despite
repeated pleas for help, ample corroboration that the bullying was real and pervasive, and the
demonstrable impact the bullying was having on this Malaysian trainee and the program as a
whole. Her name was Jerusha Sanjeevi (“Sanjeevi”). The university was Utah State University
(“USU”), and the program was USU’s Combined Clinical/Counseling/School Psychology Ph.D.
Program (“Combined Program” or “Program”).
2
2. The gravamen of the Complaint is that certain members of the faculty and
administration of the Program knowingly and deliberately allowed verbal abuse, invidious racial
and cultural bigotry, and a resulting hostile learning environment to engulf and devastate
Sanjeevi, while systematically protecting her abusers. The Complaint is based in part on
Sanjeevi’s suicide declarations, on limited documents USU disclosed under GRAMA (Utah’s
Freedom of Information Act), and on statements other students in the Program made to police
and to Plaintiff in the summer of 2017. It alleges federal civil rights claims against those faculty
members and the Department Chair based on their deliberate indifference to illegal
discrimination based on race, skin color, culture and national origin and the resulting hostile-
environment that pervaded its training program, classrooms, laboratories and facilities as a
whole. The Complaint also alleges intentional infliction of mental distress claims against the
two student abusers, breach of contract by USU and its employees, and general negligence
claims against all Defendants for their misconduct. When a university sponsors and oversees a
highly-specialized training program such as this one that presents known and foreseeable risks of
emotional distress or other harm, it owes the students in that program affirmative tort duties to
take reasonable steps to protect them and prevent such harm from occurring. The sheer
incompetence and disregard a university psychology training faculty and department showed to a
student trainee they knew was targeted, vulnerable and struggling emotionally is nothing less
than shocking, especially when they allowed the bullying to persist even after they came to
believe, based on one faculty member’s own observations, that suicide was a foreseeable
3
outcome. The Complaint seeks justice for Plaintiff and Sanjeevi’s family in Malaysia in the form
of compensatory and punitive damages.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. Plaintiff reincorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs.
4. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332,
and 1367(a).
5. Venue is appropriate in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and (2).
PARTIES
6. Plaintiff Matthew Bick is the court-appointed personal representative of Jerusha
Sanjeevi, deceased, and, at all times relevant to the allegations in this Complaint, resided in
Minnesota.
7. Utah State University (“USU”) is a state institution of higher education located in
Cache County, Utah.
8. Upon information and belief, defendant Carolyn Barcus (hereinafter “Barcus”) is
an individual and resident of Cache County, Utah, and at all times relevant to the allegations in
this Complaint was a licensed psychologist, a member of the American Psychological
Association, and a professor of psychology and employee of USU.
9. Upon information and belief, defendant Melissa Tehee (hereinafter “Tehee”) is an
individual and resident of Cache County, Utah, and at all times relevant to the allegations in this
Complaint was a member of the American Psychological Association, and a professor of
psychology and employee of USU.
4
10. Upon information and belief, defendant Gretchen Peacock (hereinafter
“Peacock”) is an individual and resident of Cache County, Utah, and at all times relevant to the
allegations in this Complaint was a licensed psychologist, a member of the American
Psychological Association, and a professor of psychology and employee of USU.
11. Upon information and belief, defendant Tamara Ellington, formerly known as
Tamara Barrett and hereinafter referred to as “Barrett”, is an individual and resident of Cache
County, Utah, and at all times relevant to the allegations in this Complaint was a Ph.D. candidate
in the clinical and counseling psychology program at USU.
12. Upon information and belief, defendant Amanda Blume (hereinafter “Blume”) is
an individual and resident of Cache County, Utah, and at all times relevant to the allegations in
this Complaint was a Ph.D. candidate in the clinical and counseling psychology program at USU.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
13. This is an action for wrongful death brought by Matthew Bick, the personal
representative of Jerusha Sanjeevi, on behalf of her family in Malaysia.
14. Sanjeevi was born and raised in Malaysia. She was of Chinese and Indian
heritage, a small minority in Malaysia.
15. Sanjeevi’s family was “very economically disadvantaged”, to say the least, but
Sanjeevi worked her way out of poverty and helped her family financially however and
whenever she could.
5
16. Sanjeevi graduated from high school at the age of 15 and began taking college
courses in Malaysia when she was 16. In January of 2012, at age 19, Sanjeevi came to the United
States to further pursue her education.
17. As an international student Sanjeevi was ineligible for federal student loans, so
she put herself through school, sometimes working multiple jobs. Her parents assisted her by co-
signing student loans and occasionally sending small amounts of money.
18. In 2013, Sanjeevi graduated Magna Cum Laude with a Bachelor of Science
degree from Bemidji State University in Minnesota. She majored in psychology and minored in
philosophy.
19. After graduation from Bemidji, Sanjeevi transferred to Minnesota State
University, Mankato to pursue her Masters degree in psychology.
20. In Minnesota, and later at USU, Sanjeevi shared her culture and ethnic food by
throwing various cultural celebrations, and brought what other students and friends called “her
famous spicy soup” to both her peers and professors.
21. In Minnesota Sanjeevi was involved in various student activism groups that
brought awareness to diversity, suicide prevention, and rape victims.
22. She wrote articles on these issues for student newspapers and scholarly journals.
23. Sanjeevi received top grades in all of her classes throughout her Masters program
and became friends with her peers. Sanjeevi’s professors at Mankato praised her exceptional
academic abilities. “Sanjeevi’s academic performance . . . has been outstanding.” She “ranked
first” in several of her classes, with grades “head and shoulders above her classmates.” Sanjeevi
6
“participated in class more than the average student”, “enthusiastically took the initiative” on
various projects, and showed “great motivation and organization” in her work. Sanjeevi handled
sensitive topics “with poise, professionalism, and even some appropriate humor.”
24. Sanjeevi had “a relaxed, calm demeanor” and was “amongst the most well
rounded students” her professors had seen. Her professors “expect[ed] more from Sanjeevi than .
. . most students.” “With all of the demands Sanjeevi ha[d] with the research projects, course
work, assistantships, and practicum, she always follow[ed] through on tasks and [was] always
offering to take on additional responsibility[.]” She “kn[e]w her strengths and limits and
accomplish[ed] the tasks that she has promised.”
25. Sanjeevi’s Master’s professors also praised her interpersonal skills. She was noted
as being “remarkably hard working, collaborative, reliable, friendly, and humble.” She was “a
reliable research partner”, “worked effectively with other students”, was “dependable”, “very
polite”, “respectful”, and “a pleasure to work with.” Professors noted that “Sanjeevi, although
very reserved, [was] good at interacting in the classroom. She [was] quick to answer academic
questions posed and consistently demonstrate[d] excellent verbal skills and demeanor in social
situations. . . .”
26. Sanjeevi “[was] also well-regarded by faculty and her peers. She [was] always
cheerful, and [did] not typically get frazzled when challenged. She [would have been] a perfect
fit with any doctoral program and . . . a valued member of any cohort.”
27. At Mankato, Sanjeevi received a Graduate Assistantship in which she “provided
consulting [services] regarding statistical analyses and manuscript writing to other graduate
7
students and faculty across the university”, lending credence to “the quality of her academic . . .
skills” and was known for her “outstanding” work. Her professors attributed her ability to excel
in this assistantship to both her competence and her “endearing” sense of humor.
28. In 2016, Sanjeevi graduated from Minnesota State University Mankato with a
Master of Arts in Clinical Psychology and nearly a 4.0 Grade Point Average.
29. Sanjeevi looked for a doctoral program that characterized itself as “an inclusive
and diverse learning environment.”
30. One of the schools she considered was Utah State University (“USU”), which
touted its diversity orally and in published and web-based content.
31. The Psychology Department at USU (the “Department”) groups students by the
school year in which they begin the Program. Each entering group of students is called a
“cohort.”
32. The students in a cohort are assigned to labs based on the research of the various
professors. Students are admitted to the Program and placed in a specific lab, where they work
with and do research for the professor who oversees that lab and acts as the faculty advisor for
those students.
33. In November of 2015, well before enrolling in USU’s Program, Sanjeevi began
corresponding with Professor Melissa Tehee about USU’s Ph.D. Psychology Program and
Tehee’s lab in that Program.
34. Sanjeevi asked Tehee whether “first year students typically start assisting in a lab
right away or [whether] they take a certain amount of course work first[.]”
8
35. Tehee responded that she hoped to be working on a project the next fall that
“would allow for a first year student to start working on research with [her] right away.”
36. Sanjeevi explained her interest in cultural issues and that she was seeking an
“inclusive and diverse learning environment.”
37. In response, Tehee praised the Department’s multicultural and cultural
competence and stated that the diverse student population brought “wonderful and diverse
perspective[s].”
38. This purported cultural climate was in large measure what drew Sanjeevi to USU.
39. Over the course of the school year Sanjeevi came to believe that “it was all false
promises.”
40. In fact, from what appears, the Department never applied any of its purported
knowledge, skill and experience or made any professional efforts whatsoever to address, much
less resolve, Sanjeevi’s conflicts with one and eventually two Native American students. At all
material times, rather than assisting Sanjeevi and the two Native American students by helping
them navigate their cultural differences, the so-called training faculty and Department Chair
acted as though they had no training or experience with such problems whatsoever, and certainly
none in dealing with conflicts based on diversity. USU created, funded, and supervised the
Program.
41. USU created, funded, promoted, and supervised a program of affirmative
outreach to Native American psychology students and faculty.
9
42. USU’s actions in creating, funding, and overseeing the Department and the
Program had advanced to a stage where it had a duty to act in a reasonable manner to prevent
known and foreseeable harm to participants in the Program.
43. USU “launched a force or instrument of potential harm.”
44. The Program touted the skills, knowledge, and experience of its faculty in
identifying and addressing culturally-based conflicts before they become “injurious.”
45. Trainees, like Sanjeevi, depended or relied on the skills, knowledge, and
experience of the faculty in identifying and addressing culturally-based conflicts before they
become “injurious.”
USU’S PURPORTED COMMITMENT TO DIVERSITY-BASED TRAINING
46. The handbook for the Program, which “supplements” USU Policies and
Procedures, sets forth the Program requirements as well as the policies and procedures of the
Program itself (the “Graduate Handbook”).
47. During the first semester of the Program, each new student in the Program was
required to take the Introduction to the Combined Doctoral Program class, PSY 6850. This class
included instruction in “cultural competence” taught by Defendants Tehee and Barcus.
48. According to the Graduate Handbook, additional classes and training in
“Diversity Issues”, and competence in these areas, are a required part of the Program.
49. Students receive course credit for participating in these classes and trainings.
50. The Graduate Handbook emphasizes diversity and the training requirements that
arise in diverse populations sixteen different times. For example:
10
51. “Respect for diversity and for values different from one’s own is a central value
of Utah State University’s Combined Clinical/Counseling/School Psychology training program.
The valuing of diversity is also consistent with the profession of psychology as mandated by the
American Psychological Association’s Ethical Principles and Code of Conduct. . . .” (emphasis
added).
52. “In our APA-accredited program we are committed to a training process that
ensures that graduate students develop the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to work effectively
with members of the public who embody intersecting demographics, attitudes, beliefs, and
values. When graduate students’ attitudes, beliefs, or values create tensions that negatively
impact the training process . . . the program faculty and supervisors are committed to a
developmental training approach that is designed to support the acquisition of professional
competence.”
53. “Trainers also model the … attitudes and values [] and the development of
cognitive flexibility required to serve a wide diversity of clients/patients. Training to work with
diverse clients/patients is integral to the curriculum, and consists of both didactic coursework and
practical training.”
54. “Trainers . . . support individual trainees in the process of developing
competencies to work with diverse populations.”
55. “Trainers respectfully work with trainees to beneficially navigate value or belief
related tensions.”
11
56. “Faculty, training staff, and supervisors will evaluate student/trainee competence
in a variety of activities/settings . . .” including “the ways in which student-trainees relate to . . .
peers . . . and individuals from diverse backgrounds or histories” and the “ potential impact of
one’s own beliefs and values on . . . peers . . . and individuals from diverse backgrounds or
histories”.
57. “The Program is organized to emphasize general preparation in . . . sensitivity to
the unique needs of minority populations and individual differences (including, but not limited
to those indigenous to the Rocky Mountain region i.e., American Indian, Latino/a)[.]”
(emphasis added).
NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH AT USU
58. USU’s graduate school in psychology has developed a reputation for its outreach
to Native American students and faculty.
59. USU promotes its active recruitment of Native Americans and its showcasing of
their culture. For the last 46 years USU has held an annual Pow Wow that celebrates and shares
Native American traditions, holds an annual Miss American Indian USU Pageant, has a Native
American program that specifically helps Native American students with everything from grants
and scholarships to overcoming “cultural misunderstandings”, and offers a minor in Native
American studies.
60. In 1986, the Psychology Department at USU (the “Department”) created the
American Indian Support Project (“AISP”) to address “the shortage of Native American mental
health professionals.”
12
61. The AISP has a “full-time American Indian faculty member [] on staff to recruit
American Indian students” and specifically recruits Native American students for “the APA-
approved Clinical, Counseling, and School Psychology Ph.D. Program”.
62. AISP also provides these students a designated tutor and the option for Native
American students to be accepted into the Program “on a provisional basis, allowing them to
prove that they can handle the rigorous course work.”
63. “The Psychology Department actively pursues stable USU financial support for
American Indian Psychology graduate students” and AISP “assists [these] students in acquiring
sufficient funds from outside sources to adequately support themselves and their families” while
in the Ph.D. Program.
64. Defendant Barcus, an emeritus professor in the Department and member of the
Blackfeet Tribe, helped develop AISP and has served in a directorship capacity for AISP since
its inception. In her biography on USU’s website, Defendant Barcus states that the number of
Native American students brought through AISP “makes Utah State University a leader in the
field of training American Indian psychologists.”
65. During the 2016-2017 school year Defendant Tehee, a member of the Cherokee
Nation, was the Director of the AISP and actively recruited Native American students for the
Ph.D. Program, including Defendant Barrett.
66. In her Biography on the APA website Tehee states that, through AISP, “’[o]ne of
the biggest things we do is provide community,’ making sure someone is available who
understands Indian students’ viewpoint and is willing to advocate for them . . . . It’s the rare
13
psychologist who understands the differences between Indian culture and the mainstream
American one. . . .”
67. Every year the Psychology Department hosts and organizes the annual Society of
Indian Psychologists (“SIP”) national convention and retreat, which is currently in its 32nd year.
68. This convention is a large part of the Psychology program’s recruiting for both
Native American students and faculty.
69. Barcus is a previous president of the Society of Indian Psychologists, and has
helped to coordinate the SIP convention every year.
70. On information and belief, Barcus first met Tehee at an SIP convention. Over the
course of ten years of attending SIP conventions together Barcus and Tehee developed a personal
relationship, and “that’s how [Tehee] became one of [Barcus’] students.” Barcus acted as
Tehee’s mentor. Barcus owns a horse ranch, and she and Tehee “ride [horses] almost every
weekend.”
71. When Barcus stopped teaching full time and became an emeritus professor, she
recruited Tehee to “tak[e] her job.”
72. Since then Tehee has acted as co-coordinator of the SIP Convention with Barcus
and as Director of AISP for the Psychology Department.
73. Professor Susan Crowley has been the On-Site Coordinator for the annual SIP
convention since 1994.
74. Professor Renee Galliher has done extensive work in the Native American
community.
14
75. Arthur Blume, the President of the SIP during the 2016-2017 school year, is the
father of a student in the Ph.D. Program, Defendant Amanda Blume.
76. According to USU’s website, Tehee has found every single member of her lab at
an SIP convention, except for Sanjeevi.
77. According to USU’s website, each and every student that has been accepted to
Tehee’s lab since its inception, aside from Sanjeevi, is not just a descendant, but a member of an
American Indian tribe: Barrett is a member of the Chinook Indian Nation, Devon Isaacs is a
member of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, and Erica Ficklin is a member of both the Tlingit
and Lakota tribes.
78. Aside from Native Americans and Sanjeevi, one Malaysian, no other ethnicities
have been admitted to Tehee’s Lab.
AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
79. USU’s Psychology Ph.D. Program is accredited by the American Psychological
Association (“APA”).
80. USU’s faculty, including Defendants Barcus, Tehee, and Peacock, are members
of the APA.
81. The APA promulgates certain ethical rules and codes of conduct for its members
and practitioners, specifically the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (the
“APA Code of Conduct”).
82. The APA Code of Conduct is understood by APA members to be the generally
accepted professional and ethical standards applicable to the psychology profession.
15
83. The APA Code of Conduct is generally accepted by state licensing boards and
other training and educational programs, including USU’s Ph.D. program.
84. According to the APA Code of Conduct “[t]he Ethical Standards set forth
enforceable rules for conduct . . . Membership in the APA commits members and student
affiliates to comply with the standards of the APA Code of Conduct and the rules and procedures
used to enforce them.” emphasis added.)
85. Furthermore, “[l]ack of awareness or misunderstanding of an Ethical Standard is
not itself a defense to a charge of unethical conduct.”
86. Though the APA Code of Conduct does not create a legal duty in and of itself, the
general acceptance of the standards found therein by the members of the APA, Ph.D. students,
and USU does create a standard of care and corresponding duty to comport with it.
87. The APA Code of Conduct applies to “school practice of psychology; research;
teaching; [and] supervision of trainees[.]” APA Code of Conduct Introduction.
88. “Psychologists provide services, teach, and conduct research” and “take
reasonable steps to ensure the competence of their work and to protect . . . students, supervisees .
. . and others from harm.” APA Code of Conduct 2.01
89. “Psychologists do not engage in unfair discrimination based on age, gender,
gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion . . . socioeconomic status, or any
basis proscribed by law.” APA Code of Conduct 3.01
90. “Psychologists do not knowingly engage in behavior that is harassing or
demeaning to persons with whom they interact in their work based on factors such as those
16
persons’ . . . race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, or
socioeconomic status.” APA Code of Conduct 3.03.
91. Section 3.04(a) of the APA Code of Conduct states: “Psychologists take
reasonable steps to avoid harming their . . . students, supervisees, research participants. . . and
others with whom they work, and to minimize harm where it is foreseeable and unavoidable.”
APA Code of Conduct 3.04(a)
92. The Graduate Handbook expressly states: “All graduate students are expected to
maintain ethical standards by the American Psychological Association and to comply with
Departmental, college, and university policies and procedures. Failure to do so constitutes
grounds for dismissal from the program.”
93. APA accreditation is a significant factor for any student applying to a doctorate
program in psychology, and for Sanjeevi. She applied to the Psychology Ph.D. Program at USU
in December of 2015.
94. While being interviewed for Native American Heritage Month, Barcus stated,
however, that “Indian peoples’ ethics are not altogether the same as white peoples’ ethics.”
SANJEEVI’S ADMISSION TO THE PROGRAM
95. On January 27, 2016, Tehee offered Sanjeevi an interview for the Program.
96. On February 8th and 9th of 2016, Sanjeevi visited the USU campus for an
interview with the Psychology Department.
17
97. According to the Program’s “Rating Scale for Graduate Student Selection” form,
Sanjeevi scored eleven out of thirteen available points during her interview with Professor JoAnn
Tschanz.
98. One student that interviewed Sanjeevi stated: “I really really liked her. I think she
was very respectful and asked all the right questions about the program and the USU campus in
general.” The student also noted that Sanjeevi “comes from a cultural background where
competition is not appreciated so she liked to work from a more collaborative standpoint instead
. . . .”
99. As part of the admission process Tehee wrote an email explaining how Sanjeevi’s
demonstrated aptitude for research design, statistics, and data analysis compensated for a low
score on the quantitative GRE. It states:
“Jerusha Sanjeevi is an international student from Malaysia. Her verbal

GRE is extremely high, in the 95th percentile but her quantitative GRE is
low. She has taken undergraduate and graduate courses in research design
and statistics (basic and advanced) and has earned the grade of an “A” in
all of them. She expressed enjoying analyzing data as a part of research
and feels very competent in these areas. She is currently working as a
research consultant and data analyst at her graduate university.
Additionally, her current advisors and supervisors wrote about her strong
knowledge of statistics and data analysis in their letters of
recommendation.”
100. On February 22 and 23, 2016, the Psychology department formalized its decisions
about which students to admit to the program for the 2016-2017 school year.
101. The incoming class was small; the Department accepted only twenty (20) students
as the incoming cohort, and on information and belief, only sixteen (16) students actually joined
the Program.
18
102. On or about February 23, 2016, Tehee emailed Sanjeevi to offer Sanjeevi a place
as a Ph.D. student in the Psychology Program at USU, and a place in Tehee’s lab where Tehee
would act as Sanjeevi’s advisor in the Program.
103. On February 24, 2016, Sanjeevi accepted Tehee’s offer.
104. On February 25, 2016, Sanjeevi received an email from USU Graduate Studies
formally offering Sanjeevi placement in the Psychology Ph.D. Program at USU under Tehee.
105. On February 29, 2016, Sanjeevi emailed her formal acceptance of this offer.
106. The 2016-2017 school year was Tehee’s first year building her own lab.
107. Tehee accepted two Ph.D. students: Sanjeevi and Defendant Barrett. The lab had
no other students.
108. Barrett identifies as Native American and is “a member of the Chinook Indian
Nation.”
109. On information and belief, Tehee met Barrett at one of the annual SIP conferences
hosted by the Psychology department at USU, developed a personal relationship with Barrett,
and invited Barrett to apply for Tehee’s lab.
110. According to Barrett’s biography on USU’s website, Barrett received a Bachelor
of Science degree from Southern Oregon University and did not have a Master’s degree when
she was admitted to the Program.
111. Barrett “is a recipient of the American Indian Support Project (AISP) funding
grant” and, on information and belief, was attending USU on a Native American scholarship.
112. AISP funding was only available to Native American students.
19
113. As the Director of AISP Tehee had responsibility for finding sufficient funding to
pay tuition and living expenses for Barrett, her Native American recruit, as described in
paragraph 63 above.
114. As the director of her own lab, Tehee was given “RA Funding” to be awarded to
her lab members to help pay for their tuition. Upon information and belief both Sanjeevi and
Barrett were eligible to receive this funding. Tehee chose to give the full year of “RA funding”
to Barrett.
115. Sanjeevi worked, under contract with USU, as a Teacher’s Assistant (TA) for
both fall and spring semesters of the 2016-2017 school year. She received a stipend of $5,000
per semester, which, in addition to small amounts of money that her parents were sometimes able
to send her, was the only money Sanjeevi had to live on.
116. The TA contract required that Sanjeevi work 20 hours per week during each
semester and maintain full-time student status.
117. For the fall semester of 2016, Sanjeevi was assigned to work 10 hours per week as
a TA for Defendant Barcus for her PSY 5200 class, and 10 hours per week for Defendant Tehee
for her PSY 4240 class.
118. Tehee and Barcus acted as Sanjeevi’s supervisors with respect to her TA
responsibilities and duties.
119. Barcus’ PSY 5200 class was titled Introduction to Counseling and Guidance. This
course taught “basic principles of interviewing and counseling” and provided “an overview of
the profession of counseling/guidance, in terms of both theory and practice.”
20
120. As part of the basic principles of counseling, this course specifically taught
competence in “techniques of assessing and intervening in suicidal ideation.”
121. Tehee’s PSY 4240 class was titled Multicultural Psychology. This course taught
“cultural competence” according to the “various ethics codes” of psychology “as well as the
most up-to-date standards of teaching. . . .”
122. Tehee’s course also taught “variables that will promote cultural competence, such
as prejudice [and] discrimination”, as well as “privilege and bias” and “reactions to ‘cultural
others’”.
123. Tehee had three TA’s, two of which were Sanjeevi and Defendant Blume.
124. Blume is the daughter of Dr. Arthur Blume, who was the President of SIP during
the 2016-2017 school year. On information and belief, Blume is of Cherokee descent.
125. Blume is pursuing a “Multicultural” emphasis, working with her advisor,
Professor Renee Galliher. The “multicultural emphasis area provides specialized focus across
ethnic/cultural . . . populations with emphasis on . . . cultural adaptation . . . and ethics.”
126. On information and belief, Blume is a close personal friend of Barrett.
FALL SEMESTER
127. On August 12, 2016, four (4) days after her move to Utah, Sanjeevi met with
Tehee and Barrett, the only other student in Tehee’s lab. Sanjeevi had met Tehee during her
interview for the Program as noted above, but this was the first time Sanjeevi met Barrett.
128. The fall semester began on August 29, 2016.
21
129. As the cohort was so small and many students’ research goals overlapped, the
students in the Program often discussed their research and interests.
130. One student noted that Sanjeevi “is really interested in diversity issues and is very
cognizant of her own ethnic identity.”
131. Sanjeevi “often talked” about her culture, and “took great pride in her heritage,
[and] her home country”.
132. On Friday, September 2, 2016, four (4) days after beginning her first semester of
the Ph.D. program, Sanjeevi emailed Tehee about the prospect of publishing her Master’s thesis.
133. That weekend Barrett posted a picture on social media of Barrett and Tehee with a
horse and horse trailer stating: “I am so incredibly thankful for this woman! My boss/my
mentor/my role model/my friend/my rock. We have such an amazing and unique relationship
that I wish every grad student could have with their professor.”
134. Sanjeevi and Tehee met on September 6, 2016 to discuss Sanjeevi’s options and
decided not to publish Sanjeevi’s thesis, but to use Sanjeevi’s underlying research to write a
different paper.
135. The following day Sanjeevi drafted an email to Dr. Eric Sprankle, one of her
professors from Mankato, to see if he would co-author the project.
136. Tehee approved the email on September 12, 2016, and Sanjeevi sent the email the
same day.
137. Dr. Sprankle responded in just over an hour, “happy to assist with” the
“manuscript” and “happy to help” his former student succeed.
22
138. On September 8, 2016, Sanjeevi instructed Tehee’s undergraduate students in the
Multicultural class on proper APA citations.
139. After her presentation Sanjeevi drafted a reference guide for proper APA
citations, and asked Tehee if she could send it to the students.
140. On September 10, 2016, Barrett posted a picture on social media of Tehee with
Barrett’s children and states: “I have the best boss/professor in the entire universe! She came
over tonight, smudged my entire house and all of my kids, brought me migraine medicine, and
read my kids stories! I am so thankful for this amazing woman!”
141. On September 12, 2016, “the Utah State University Student Association passed an
academic senate bill “declar[ing] a mental health crisis at Utah State University” and “further
enacted that the mental health crisis at Utah State University be considered a pressing issue. . . .”
142. Among other things, the bill notes that “over 100 students enrolled in Utah higher
education institutions attempted suicide during the 2015 academic year,” and “15 of those higher
education students who attempted suicide were tragically successful.”
143. The Student Association passed its declaration because the USU Counseling and
Psychological Services office (“CAPS”) was severely understaffed and USU students were often
forced to wait four to six weeks to see counselors.
144. Additionally, at that time the percentage of USU students seeking help from
CAPS who said they were seriously considering suicide was significantly higher than the
national average, 46 percent compared to 33 percent.
23
145. By September 19, 2016, just three weeks after the semester began, Sanjeevi was
already considering leaving USU.
146. Barrett had spent the summer “hanging out” with Tehee, and once the semester
started Barrett often talked to Sanjeevi about their “close and unique” relationship.
147. Sanjeevi was aware that Barrett also posted pictures on social media of her and
Tehee spending time together, horseback riding at Barcus’ ranch, and tending Barrett’s children.
148. The faculty of the AISP program, namely Tehee and Barcus, often hosted socials,
dinners, hiking trips, and horseback riding at Barcus’ ranch for the Native American students,
and Barrett developed a strong personal relationship with both Tehee and Barcus.
149. The first week of school Barrett “confronted Sanjeevi and told her that she was
second best and that [Barrett] would get the best research and assignments.”
150. It is customary that students in a lab get to work on their advisor’s projects. When
Sanjeevi first emailed Tehee to learn about her lab, Sanjeevi specifically asked about doing
research for Tehee’s projects, and, as also noted above, Tehee responded that she hoped to be
collecting data by fall “which would allow for a first year student to start working on research
with [Tehee] right away.”
151. Tehee gave all of her research projects to Barrett; not a single one went to
Sanjeevi.
152. On information and belief, Tehee told Barrett about issues regarding Sanjeevi’s
admission to the Program.
24
153. Barrett told Sanjeevi that Barrett was Tehee’s “first pick” to join the lab, and that
Tehee had “begged her for months” to join Tehee’s lab.
154. Barrett also told Sanjeevi that “she [Sanjeevi] had only been accepted to the
program because the student the department had actually wanted declined the offer at the last
minute.”
155. According to the Department Chair, Defendant Peacock, only faculty would have
this type of information.
156. Barrett made derisive comments to Sanjeevi about Sanjeevi’s culture, said that
“Asians only want to please their parents”, made fun of Sanjeevi’s name and told Sanjeevi that
“Asian names are weird”, among other cultural jabs that Sanjeevi found to be hurtful.
157. After Sanjeevi gave a presentation in class Barrett called Sanjeevi “too sensitive”.
158. Sanjeevi “missed a class one day and asked . . . [Barrett] if she needed to know
anything about the class or if they had an assignment” and Barrett told Sanjeevi no. However,
“[w]hen [Sanjeevi] next attended class she learned there was in fact an assignment from the
previous class that [Barrett] hadn’t told her about.”
159. Sanjeevi reported her concerns to Tehee. At Sanjeevi told Tehee that she did not
want to cause trouble for anyone. She simply wanted her advisor, Tehee, to step in, address the
behavior and cultural adversity, and help the students themselves to resolve the situation;
certainly a reasonable request to make to one’s faculty advisor and lab instructor.
25
160. Thereafter, Tehee, Barrett and Sanjeevi had a meeting to address Sanjeevi’s
concerns about Barrett’s behavior. Afterwards, Jerusha told her boyfriend, Matthew Bick, that
she felt like neither Tehee nor Barrett took her concerns seriously.
161. Upon information and belief, Barrett denied Sanjeevi’s allegations and Tehee
dismissed them as a misunderstanding.
162. Whatever exactly transpired between Tehee and Barrett during or after the
meeting must await discovery. Regardless, it did nothing to help. Barrett’s misconduct
escalated.
163. Tehee did nothing to address the cultural issues between Sanjeevi and Barrett or
to help them resolve the situation, and upon information and belief did not take any action to
correct Barrett’s behavior.
164. According to one of her classmates and friends, early on in the school year
Sanjeevi “expressed feeling concerned about her relationship with her advisor, Melissa Tehee, . .
. because it seemed as though her lab mate, [] Barrett, had a very strong relationship with [Tehee]
while [Sanjeevi] did not.”
165. On September 19, 2016, Sanjeevi emailed another member of the training faculty,
Professor Melanie Domenech Rodriguez (“Domenech Rodriguez”), for guidance. Sanjeevi said:
“I am in the midst of deciding whether to leave the program, and I think it will be good to talk it
over with a professor first.” They met on Friday, September 23, 2016 at Domenech Rodriguez’
home.
26
166. Sanjeevi also emailed Professor Susan Crowley on September 21, 2016 to set up a
meeting to discuss these issues. They met on Thursday, September 22 at noon.
167. Domenech Rodriguez and Crowley convinced Sanjeevi to stay at USU. Without
discovery Plaintiff does not know how they accomplished that or what they may have said, if
anything, to Tehee or Barrett. However, upon information and belief, Domenech Rodriguez and
Crowley took no action to address the clash between Barrett and Sanjeevi’s cultures, or to help
them address or resolve the situation.
168. One student reports that Barrett would “sen[d] texts to [Sanjeevi] of Indian foods
and stereotypical Indian memes and ask[] whether they were legitimate. This was done despite
the fact that [Sanjeevi] affirmed numerous times that she was not from India, but from Malaysia”
though she did have Indian heritage.
169. Another student notes that “[w]hen [Sanjeevi] had better research results, Barrett
would discredit her.”
170. After one set of class presentations another student told Sanjeevi that Barrett was
“probably just mad that [Sanjeevi’s] presentation [] was amazing and [Barrett] 100% admitted to
having a huge [data] bias in her proposal.”
171. Much of Sanjeevi’s research focused on sexual pathology and rape, because
Sanjeevi had been raped as a child in Malaysia, and “often talked about her life-long experience
of being a minority” there. Barrett made a comment in front of other students asserting “the
impossibility of male rape”, which her peers thought was “ludicrous” and “shocked and
offended” Sanjeevi.
27
172. One of Sanjeevi’s peers explained that “Barrett started a narrative in the
[Program] about a ‘minority hierarchy’ which basically stated that if two parties were of a
minority status, the one with the darker skin was the inferior of the two.”
173. Other students noted that Barrett would “oft[en] . . . put [Sanjeevi]down, stating
that she was ‘whiter’ than [Sanjeevi] and therefore more deserving of research position, cohort
status, etc.”
174. Barrett’s racial hierarchy permeated the Program and tormented Jerusha until her
death.
175. On October 3, 2016, Domenech Rodriguez asked Sanjeevi if she wanted to work
on a side project. Sanjeevi was not doing research for Tehee, as noted above, and was “very
interested” in working on the project. However, Sanjeevi had “some questions about the
controversy it might create” if she did work with Domenech Rodriguez.
176. Sanjeevi was subject to “blatantly racist comments in class, some of them from
[Barrett].”
177. Barrett began “mocking” Sanjeevi when she spoke in class.
178. Barrett made comments to other students about how Sanjeevi “ma[de] a big deal
out of everything.”
179. Barrett spread a rumor that Sanjeevi was the last person chosen for the first-year
cohort.
28
180. Barrett spread false rumors that “the faculty didn’t like [Sanjeevi]”, that Professor
Crowley had “chastised [Sanjeevi] in class”, and that “the entire first year cohort [didn’t] like
[Sanjeevi].”
181. Barrett spread rumors and attributed these negative comments and beliefs to their
entire cohort when these comments and beliefs were actually her own.
182. The rumors spread by Barrett to the small cohort of students were pervasive, both
by the nature of rumors generally, the content and implications of these rumors themselves, and
due to the fact that the cohort consisted of only 16 students.
183. Sanjeevi spoke with several faculty members as well as other students to “fact
check”, confirming that she was on good terms with everyone and that there were no problems
that needed to be addressed.
184. On information and belief, Tehee shared personal information about Sanjeevi
with Barrett that Sanjeevi had given Tehee in confidence, and Barrett repeated the information in
front of other students.
185. After that, Sanjeevi texted a classmate that she “[couldn’t] trust [her] advisor
anymore.”
186. Tehee knew Sanjeevi was struggling. On October 17, 2016, Tehee told Sanjeevi
“[y]ou do not need to attend class tomorrow if you would like to study. . . there is no reason you
need to attend. We can also reschedule your weekly meeting.”
187. Sanjeevi told others that it is her “cultural belief that when you want to bring
yourself out of a dark place you lift others to help lift yourself.”
29
188. In late October Sanjeevi hosted a celebration of Deepavali, a Malaysian holiday.
Sanjeevi invited the students in her cohort as well as the faculty.
189. Barrett’s bullying escalated and became more public.
190. According to students “there ha[d] been an uptick of racist and discriminatory
issues within our department since the 2016 presidential campaign began.”
191. On November 9, 2016, Donald Trump was elected.
192. On November 10, 2016 Sanjeevi emailed Domenech Rodriguez asking if she
knew whether Sanjeevi would get deported.
193. Sanjeevi asked Domenech Rodriguez to “[p]lease let me know how I can be a
source of support to you and anyone else as well.”
194. Sanjeevi also told Domenech Rodriguez: “As a Malaysian, I believe in food
therapy, so I am going to be dropping off food this week for anyone who needs a pick-me-up, so
let me know if I can help anyone in particular[]!”
195. Sanjeevi “made curry and rice, packaged them in small containers, attached a note
for each [individual classmate] and delivered these care packages” to them.
196. “She even made one for [Barrett] in an attempt to connect with her and move past
what [Sanjeevi] had already experienced.”
197. According to students in the cohort, Barrett conceived a rumor that Sanjeevi was
bipolar based on Sanjeevi sharing her cultural ‘food therapy’, “because [Sanjeevi] was so upset
after the election but then made everyone food and was so happy.”
30
198. The rumor about Sanjeevi having bipolar disorder was severe, objectively
offensive, and potentially damaging to a future therapist as bipolar disorder is a serious mental
illness.
199. Blume then repeated the rumor to others in the Program, including Sanjeevi’s
roommate, and helped spread the rumor that Sanjeevi was bipolar. Sanjeevi expressed concern
“that a person in the field of psychology was making disparaging and stigmatizing remarks about
mental illness when [they] are being trained to help people who are suffering with those exact
issues.”
200. Barrett and Blume also started a rumor that “all of [Sanjeevi]’s professors were
dissatisfied with her performance and that she was deliberately problematic in class.” According
to one of Sanjeevi’s friends and classmates, “this rumor was intensely difficult for [Sanjeevi]
given her Eastern cultural upbringing.”
201. Sanjeevi’s TA position for Professor Tehee’s 4240 class was supposed to last a
full year. However, on December 1, 2016, Peacock informed Sanjeevi that she would no longer
be Tehee’s TA and she would be assigned to another professor instead.
202. On the morning of Friday, December 2, 2016, Blume sent another student in the
Program a series of text messages disparaging Sanjeevi.
203. In these messages Blume stated that Barrett and Renee Galliher, Blume’s advisor,
were telling students and teachers that Sanjeevi “ha[d] missed 2-3 weeks of class” so far that
semester, and that Barrett “said that teachers are complaining to her advisor [Tehee] and calling
[Sanjeevi] out in class for not acting like she wants to be there.” Blume said that she heard from
31
Sanjeevi’s “cohort that [Sanjeevi] is hypersensitive and makes a big deal out of everything and
hates everyone” and that she “heard [Sanjeevi] is a crybaby from several people.” She noted that
“Sanjeevi is attracting more attention than the usual gossip.”
204. The response from the other student was that “[Barrett] talks a lot of shit on a lot
of people in the program.”
205. That afternoon, on December 2, 2016, Sanjeevi again met with Tehee to discuss
the rumors that Barrett and Blume were spreading. According to USU Policy and the Student
Code, Tehee had the authority to address these issues in her capacities as Barrett’s advisor and
Blume’s training supervisor. Furthermore, Tehee was the multicultural professor and provided
diversity training in the Program; she should have known how to navigate and address the
cultural differences between Barrett, Blume, and Sanjeevi. Tehee failed to do so, and the
behavior continued.
206. According to Peacock, when a student is accepted to USU’s Ph.D. Psychology
program, part of that acceptance is based on the student’s research goals aligning with the
research of a specific professor and their lab. As such, for a student to move to a different lab is
very rare.
207. On December 4, 2016, Sanjeevi again met with Domenech Rodriguez to discuss
the continued bullying and to try to find a solution. They discussed Sanjeevi moving to
Domenech Rodriguez’ lab.
208. Domenech Rodriguez and Sanjeevi determined that Sanjeevi should set up a
meeting between herself, Domenech Rodriguez, and Tehee to discuss the bullying.
32
209. Sanjeevi “fact check[ed]” Barrett’s rumors and spoke with her cohort and several
faculty members. Tehee confirmed that there had “only been positive feedback” from other
professors regarding Sanjeevi. Sanjeevi told the cohort that she was being bullied and reported
to one of her peers that the cohort “said they didn’t hate me, but liked and supported me.”
210. On December 5, 2016, Sanjeevi met with Professor Galliher, Blume’s advisor, to
“fact check” some of the rumors Sanjeevi had heard. “[Galliher] guessed who was behind the
rumors.”
211. On information and belief, Galliher named Blume and Barrett as the source of the
rumors without prompting from Sanjeevi.
212. According to Barcus, a lot of the bullying happened in Professor Renee Galliher’s
class.
213. Domenech Rodriguez told Sanjeevi that Galliher intended to meet with Tehee
herself to discuss Blume and Barrett’s bullying of Sanjeevi.
214. Sanjeevi told a friend and classmate:
“I’m going to leave my lab because I can’t take it anymore. [I don’t know]
where to go though. . . . I just feel really down about getting bullied [] as
an adult. I know I shouldn’t feel this way because that’s the whole purpose
of why she’s doing it.
“But I still do.
“Do you think I’m an easy target?
“I’ve never done anything to her. She knew that I’ve been struggling with
the fear of getting deported since the election. She knew that I have no
power here as a foreign student. And she did this to me on top of all of
that. I don’t understand how a person can be so cruel.”
33
215. Sanjeevi skipped her Tuesday, December 6, 2016 class where she and Blume
were both TAs for Tehee.
216. Sanjeevi met with Tehee right after that class to once again discuss the bullying.
217. Sanjeevi told Tehee that “she didn’t need to be friends” with Barrett, “but she
wanted to be in a supportive environment” at school. Sanjeevi only sought the level of
professionalism that was expected in the Program, nothing more.
218. One student noted that Tehee was “biased” and that Sanjeevi had “no support” in
her lab.
219. Another student noted that “the personal friendship between Barrett and Tehee
neutralized any action Tehee should have taken as the advisor to Sanjeevi.”
220. During the fall semester several other students besides Sanjeevi also reported
being bullied by Barrett.
221. On information and belief, a similar incident with another Asian student in the
Program, Wooley An, was so well known that the students referred to it as the “Wooley
Incident”.
222. On December 7, 2016, Sanjeevi met with the Department Head, Gretchen
Peacock, to discuss Barrett’s bullying. Sanjeevi told Peacock that she was being “bullied” by
Barrett and that she was “afraid” of Barrett.
223. That afternoon Peacock emailed Domenech Rodriguez and Tehee stating “I had a
long talk with Sanjeevi today” and would “like to meet as soon as possible” to discuss “how to
best proceed with addressing the concerns that Sanjeevi expressed.”
34
224. Tehee responded “addressing this soon is better. . . . as soon . . . as reasonably
possible.”
225. Domenech Rodriguez was out of town, but offered to “join via
Skype/Zoom/FaceTime” to facilitate the meeting.
226. Domenech Rodriguez, Tehee, and Peacock met the following day, December 8,
2016, to discuss Barrett’s bullying of Sanjeevi.
227. Professor Donna Gilbertson has been an assistant professor in the Department
since 2001 and her research includes “effective interventions for culturally diverse students or
for socially isolated students who are experiencing bullying.” Neither Peacock nor any of the
faculty discussed Barrett’s bullying behavior, how to address the bullying, or the effects on the
minority targets, such as Sanjeevi, with Professor Gilbertson.
228. Peacock reported to Sturgeon that she and Tehee “met with [Barrett] and
discussed bullying.” On information and belief, this meeting took place between December 9 and
December 19, 2016.
229. Barrett is reported to have cried, and according to Peacock “[Barrett] said she
didn’t know what she could have done to bully anyone.”
230. Peacock and Tehee “spoke to [Barrett] about being inclusive with the cohort and
being aware of her actions” and “not speaking for others when communicating with her peers.”
231. Knowing that she was not the only student who had reported Barrett’s bullying to
Peacock, Sanjeevi had asked that her name not be mentioned; however, Peacock later stated to
35
Sturgeon that in their meeting with Barrett, Peacock and Tehee did not address any of Barrett’s
“specific offensive behavior”.
232. Peacock and Tehee addressed only Sanjeevi’s concerns and did not include those
of the other students that had reported being bullied by Barrett.
233. Peacock did attempt to gather any information about Sanjeevi’s claims from other
students or faculty.
234. According to other students in the program, Sanjeevi “experienced racial
discrimination” by Barrett and the Department.
235. On information and belief, Peacock did not investigate any of the multiple
bullying reports against Barrett.
236. Peacock labeled Barrett’s bullying Sanjeevi as “a conflict between students.”
Neither she nor the faculty defendants had come to grips with the truth or the seriousness of
Sanjeevi’s allegation.
237. Peacock failed to handle the situation per USU guidelines or as the department
chair of a clinical psychology program would or should, despite Sanjeevi’s reasonable
expectation otherwise.
238. Sanjeevi told her boyfriend that she thought “Tehee was protecting Barrett from
any discipline.”
239. Then, on December 9, 2016, just two days after her failed attempt to get help from
Defendant Peacock, the department head, Sanjeevi broke down.
240. As Barcus’ TA, Sanjeevi attended a class discussion about another student’s rape.
36
241. Barcus saw Sanjeevi rush out the door. According to Domenech Rodriguez,
“Sanjeevi went to Melissa [Tehee]’s office and hid under her desk. She had what looked like a
trauma response secondary to exposure to activating material. Most of us recognize the behavior
as highly unusual and problematic for a therapist in training regardless of its surrounding
context.”
242. On information and belief, it was Barcus who found Sanjeevi under Tehee’s desk
and subsequently discussed her observations with Domenech Rodriguez and Tehee. Domenech
Rodriguez was reporting Barcus’ observations.
243. On information and belief, Barcus believed that this was a dissociative event as a
result of not just the rape discussion, but also Borderline Personality Disorder and possibly
Dissociative Identity Disorder.
244. As a licensed psychologist, Barcus was aware that individuals with Borderline
Personality Disorder are potentially at risk for suicide.
245. Barcus was also aware that individuals with Dissociative Identity Disorder are at
greatly increased risk of suicide.
246. According to Domenech Rodriguez, Barcus has significant “diversity training
experience and clinical experience with patients with [Borderline Personality Disorder].”
247. At this point, Barcus not only knew Sanjeevi was at risk of suicide, she had a duty
to act reasonably under the circumstances.
37
248. On December 12, Tehee sent Sanjeevi “the grounding session, exercises, and
handouts from the seeking safety manual” which is used when victims of sexual abuse, who have
PTSD, are triggered.
249. Tehee also notified Sanjeevi that she had spoken to Barcus about Sanjeevi’s
reaction.
250. At a minimum, Tehee and Barcus knew about Sanjeevi’s trauma response.
251. Without discovery, Plaintiff does not know what steps, if any, Defendants took to
mitigate the harm or prevent it from recurring. The only information USU provided in response
to a GRAMA request is the self-help manual Tehee sent to Sanjeevi on December 12. From what
appears, no further steps were taken.
252. Throughout the Fall Semester, Sanjeevi relied on Tehee, Barcus, Domenech
Rodriguez, and Peacock to abide by the Program policies, which state that “bias, stereotyped
thinking, and prejudicial beliefs and attitudes will not go unchallenged”, and to take steps to
protect her, or otherwise control Barrett and Blume.
253. Sanjeevi reasonably deferred to the superior knowledge, skill, experience, and
control of Tehee, Barcus, Domenech Rodriguez, and Peacock because the bullying all occurred
in the academic environments (e.g. labs, classrooms, etc.) that were taught, supervised, and
otherwise commanded by them. Defendants Tehee, Barcus, and Peacock all had legally “special
relationships” with Sanjeevi.
SPRING SEMESTER
254. Spring semester began on January 9, 2017.
38
255. According to school policies, Graduate TA’s may only take “a maximum of 12
credits per semester.”
256. However, Sanjeevi took 15 credits during spring semester “in an attempt to
complete all the courses she would have with [Barrett] as quickly as possible.”
257. According to one student in the Program, Barrett “organized social events and
purposely [did] not invite Sanjeevi. One event (Josh Paramenter’s birthday party), Barrett invited
everyone in the cohort and a few students outside her lab; intentionally and obviously excluding
Sanjeevi.”
258. Blume “was close friends with [Sanjeevi]’s roommate and texted [Sanjeevi’s]
roommate that she needed to tell [Sanjeevi] to fix her behavior in class.”
259. Barrett “boasted” that “she and [Tehee] had gone to a conference together” and
had “chosen” the next person that would be joining Tehee’s lab. This incoming student was
supposedly a good friend of Barrett’s and, on information and belief, Native American.
According to Peacock, faculty were not permitted to share admissions information about
students.
260. Also at the outset of spring semester, according to a third year student, “[Barrett]
was saying that ‘the entire first year cohort doesn’t like [Sanjeevi].’”
261. On January 11, Sanjeevi told a fellow student: “[I don’t know] why [Barrett]
won’t leave me alone. She makes school such a hostile environment for me. I think I’m ready to
give up.”
39
262. On January 12, the third day of spring semester, Sanjeevi emailed Domenech
Rodriguez to try and schedule a time to meet.
263. On January 17, 2017 Sanjeevi emailed Domenech Rodriguez again.
264. That same day Peacock emailed Tehee and Domenech Rodriguez: “Have you
heard any more about the [Sanjeevi] / [Barrett] relationship? I asked [Sanjeevi] to keep me
updated about anything new that happened and it sounds like there are still some issues.”
265. According to Tehee, both Barrett and Sanjeevi had approached Tehee “about what
to do if they [were] put in a group together”, and Sanjeevi was in fact required to partner with
Barrett in one of her classes.
266. This same day, Peacock also asked Sanjeevi for permission to use Sanjeevi’s
name in a conversation with Barrett regarding the ongoing bullying.
267. Sanjeevi responded: “Would it be my concerns alone that would be mentioned
specifically or the other students’ as well?”
268. Peacock responded that she had “the most specifics” on Barrett bullying Sanjeevi
and that she knew “more about [Sanjeevi’s] situations than others’.”
269. Other international students that were farther along in the Program told Sanjeevi
“that the department has a history of being unsupportive towards international students.
Especially Asian international students.”
270. Sanjeevi told another student “I feel like my experience concurs.”
271. After “an entire semester of putting up with the racially selective support of the
Psych[ology] department” another student reports that she convinced Sanjeevi to “set[] up a
40
meeting with the student conduct office so that she could get the support she so desperately
needed.”
272. On January 20, 2017, Sanjeevi went to the Student Conduct Office and filed a
Discrimination, Harassment, and Hostile Environment report with Krystin Deschamps. A student
in her class went with Sanjeevi and is mentioned in the report as a “Witness.”
273. Sanjeevi reported that she felt discriminated against because of her “Race, Color,
Religion, Sex/Gender, National Origin, [and] Disability” among other things.
274. Sanjeevi recounted some of Barrett’s bullying: that Barrett spread a rumor that
“[Sanjeevi] has bipolar disorder”, called Sanjeevi “too sensitive” in class, told other students that
Sanjeevi “missed . . . three weeks of classes” after the presidential election, “that [Sanjeevi] was
the last pick in the cohort”, “that the faculty didn’t like [Sanjeevi]”, that one faculty member had
“chastised [Sanjeevi] in class”, and that “the entire first year cohort doesn’t like [Sanjeevi].”
According to Deschamps’ report, Sanjeevi attributed to Barrett such remarks as “Asian names
are weird”, and “Asians work hard in school because their families expect them to”. Sanjeevi
added that after the election Barrett “wondered why if [Sanjeevi] was so upset, she was ‘smiling
and giving everyone food.’”
275. Sanjeevi reported that Barrett “is exceptionally close to Dr. Tehee”, that she felt
“ostracized”, “bullied[,] and alone, like her cohort and faculty didn’t like her”, and that the
bullying was “having academic consequences”.
276. Sanjeevi told Dechamps twice that she “is afraid” of Barrett. Sanjeevi also stated
that “she is afraid of consequences in her department” for making the report, and that “[s]he
41
wants to stay in her lab . . . but she isn’t sure that she can. She is considering leaving USU
because she feels the environment is so hostile.”
277. As some of Sanjeevi’s bullying “stemmed from racial identity”, “her ethnic
identity, and … her health condition”, Deschamps referred Sanjeevi to USU’s Affirmative
Action / Equal Opportunity office (“AA/EO”).
278. Barrett began spreading rumors about Sanjeevi directly to the faculty.
279. On January 24, 2017, at 1:26 PM, Tehee emailed Peacock and Domenech
Rodriguez regarding the continued bullying.
280. Tehee explained that over the last few days she “had 3 students express concerns
about this matter.” Tehee also stated that “[Barrett] is now aware that Sanjeevi is at least one of
the people who [reported her] to [Peacock].”
281. On information and belief, the three students who expressed concern to Tehee
were Barrett, Blume, and Josh Parmenter, who, according to other students, “were the primary
aggressors” in bullying Sanjeevi “and acted as a trio.”
282. Barrett’s latest rumor painted herself as the victim: she reported to Tehee that
Barrett and Parmenter were not invited to another student’s birthday party, and Barrett blamed
Sanjeevi for their lack of invitation.
283. According to other students it was Barrett that had planned and hosted various
social events and excluded Sanjeevi, and “[Barrett] not being invited to different events students
were having was a direct reflection of the types of relationships she had forged.”
42
284. Barrett also spread a rumor that Sanjeevi was telling students that “she feels like
Barrett didn’t get into enough trouble.”
285. Tehee states: “[Barrett] is asking if we can step in and help mediate this situation
as it has become exclusionary and uncomfortable for many if not all of the first-year students.”
286. Peacock responded to Tehee at 1:36 PM, just ten minutes later: “Yikes. What a
mess. I have a call into Krystin [Deschamps] [because] there was a student who apparently
talked to her last week about this too (not a first year) and I’m wondering if there are other pieces
to this.”
287. At 2:03 PM Domenech Rodriguez replied: “Agreed. This is getting messy and
ugly. . . . [I]f a behavior . . . could lead to dismissal, then we probably need to name it ASAP and
address it with a clear plan for remediation.”
288. In response, Peacock states: “Melanie, I’m curious about your take on this. I’m
not sure I’d jump to program dismissal concerns for either student at this time. I’m not sure what
to believe, but if all reports are accurate it seems like both students are engaging in behaviors that
could be considered inappropriate and exclusionary.” Despite receiving multiple reports from
multiple parties, Peacock did not concern herself with determining the truth.
289. In her response, Domenech Rodriguez acknowledged that “we need to get some
missing context” and then continues:
“I think some behaviors on Sanjeevi’s part are bordering on lack of

professionalism that could lead to dismissal from the program. I went back
and looked at [the] handbook and see it could fall under point 3 of the
reasons for dismissal (p. 48). . . . I was thinking about the specific
behaviors (request for exclusion, gossip, maybe some stonewalling??) and
then it hit me that these are outlined in our competencies . . . and that they
43
are tied to our very clear expectations and to good standing in the
program. . . . And given that what we call ‘stonewalling’ may also be
‘culturally appropriate communication’ it seems imperative that we come
from a position of supporting bicultural professional competence
development and naming the specific behaviors and tying them to clear
operational definitions how those tie to established professional
behaviors seems important.
“And it’s true of [Sanjeevi] and [Barrett] and even other students who are
participating in the exclusion, etc. So I’m thinking: what are the
interventions here? And to whom are the interventions directed? How
will we observe the changes in bx that are needed? What changes do we
want to see? . . .” (emphasis added)
290. The portion of the Graduate Handbook that Domenech Rodriguez cites lists three
reasons for dismissal:
[A]ny one or more of the factors listed below will result in a student being
considered for dismissal from the program. . . . a) any characteristics
which would, in the judgment of the faculty, make the student unsuited to
engage in a career in psychology; b) conduct unbecoming of a
professional psychologist (e.g., APA guidelines); or c) failure to comply
with the departmental, college, and university regulations or procedures.
291. These requirements, including the Graduate Handbook, APA Code of Conduct,
and USU Policies and Procedures, are all taught by Peacock as a required class for the incoming
cohort during the first semester of the Program.
292. USU Policies prohibit, among other things, discrimination; inflicting “mental
duress, harm, or abuse upon another person, including but not limited to verbal abuse and
intimidation”; “any action taken or situation created, whether on or off campus, which []
endangers the mental or physical health of or safety of another; or [] produces mental or physical
discomfort, embarrassment, harassment, or ridicule of another; or . . . any activity that would
44
subject the individual to extreme mental stress, such as sleep deprivation . . . or conduct that
subjects another to extreme embarrassment, shame, or humiliation . . .” and “verbal utterance, or
other activities which interfere with either the faculty member’s ability to conduct the class or
the ability of other students to profit from the instructional program.”
293. These professors did not discuss further the cultural implications in the Program
or support that their students needed; they also neglected to discuss whether these provisions of
the Graduate Handbook applied to Barrett’s behavior, only Sanjeevi’s.
294. None of the behavior or cultural incompetence discussed was evaluated,
investigated, or otherwise addressed, and the department did not develop a “plan for
remediation” for either the bullying or the lack of cultural competence of their students.
295. Peacock, Tehee, and Domenech Rodriguez set up another meeting to talk about
the situation, this one on Friday, January 27, 2016 at 10:00 AM.
296. In the meantime, on January 25, 2017, Sanjeevi met with Stacy Sturgeon at
USU’s AA/EO office. Sanjeevi’s friend and classmate accompanied her.
297. According to Sturgeon’s report: “Sanjeevi stated she had spoken with her
department head” and “told Dr. Peacock that she was being ‘bullied’ by [Barrett]. She said
[Barrett] was ‘spreading rumors’ about her that ‘weren’t flattering’” and “spreading rumors that
were ‘ruining her academic reputation.’” Barrett “’made up a rumor’ about [Sanjeevi’s] mental
health” and “’told others that [Sanjeevi] is bipolar’ which is not true.” Barrett “told other
students that [Sanjeevi] was the ‘last student picked’”, was “the last graduate student added to
the cohort” and “was telling other students that the faculty did not like [Sanjeevi]. She said this
45
‘horrified her.’” Barrett “‘constantly’ makes statements that [Sanjeevi] ‘makes a big deal out of
everything’” and Barrett makes derogatory comments saying “‘the cohort says’ when it is
‘actually just her’ and . . . does this with other[]” students besides Sanjeevi. “[Sanjeevi] said she
felt ‘self-conscious’ speaking in class because her lab mate was ‘mocking her’” when she spoke.
She said “this is affecting me academically”.
298. Sanjeevi “said that the rumors about being bipolar, [that] faculty didn’t like her
and that she made a big deal out of everything ‘caused her a lot of emotional distress.’” Sanjeevi
further explained that “meeting with [AA/EO] ‘shows she is feeling distressed’ because she
would not ‘normally share her feelings with anybody.’”
299. Barrett “says things that are ‘offensive’ to [Sanjeevi]” like “Asian researcher
names are so weird” and “Asians only want to please their parents”.
300. Barrett “is deliberately mean to people she doesn’t like. Sanjeevi said she wanted
[Barrett] to stop bullying people” and “to have some sort of remediation before being allowed to
see clients in a professional setting.”
301. Sanjeevi also explained the “racial power differential” in her lab, that she felt like
she was being “pushed out of [Tehee’s] lab”, “excluded from the lab”, and that “the way she
[was] treated ma[de] her feel like she need[ed] to leave the lab.” Sanjeevi mentioned wanting to
switch to Domenech Rodriguez’ lab.
302. Sanjeevi said that Barrett “is Native American but ‘presents white’” and has “a
close relationship with their advisor [Tehee] who is also ‘Native American but presents white.’”
Sanjeevi “said that there are only two [students] in the lab and her lab mate [Barrett] ‘frequently
46
posts [on] social media about how close and unique [Barrett’s] relationship is with their advisor.”
Barrett “would post pictures of herself and [Tehee] riding horses. . . ." Barrett “started [at USU]
in the summer and got to know faculty prior to other students.” Barrett “post[s] Facebook
messages ‘bragging about her relationship’ with [Tehee]”, “posts pictures of [herself and
Tehee]” and “told [Sanjeevi] that she [Barrett] was the ‘first pick; and that their advisor had
‘begged’ her for months to come to the program and work in [Tehee’s] lab.” Sanjeevi stated that
she “did not need to have a ‘personal relationship’ with her advisor but she wanted to be able to
have a ‘working relationship’ and she didn’t always feel like she could approach her advisor.”
303. Sanjeevi related to Sturgeon her understanding that “when you join a lab you
usually get to work on your advisor’s projects.” Sanjeevi had “asked to work on a specific
project, but [Barrett] boasted about being on that project.” Sanjeevi “is not working on any of
[Tehee’s] projects; she is working on her own data. . . . [Barrett] has been able to work on lots of
[Tehee’s] projects” and “boasts of [the] projects and help she is receiving on applications.”
304. Barrett “boasted about how she and [Tehee] had gone to a conference together”
and “chosen” a “‘great’ person for the lab.” Barrett’s relationship with Tehee is “close and
personal”. Barrett “would post things [on social media] like “hey, my advisor just helped me
with a paper or an application. Sanjeevi said [Tehee] did not help her like this” and she “did not
think she could go to her advisor because of the relationship” Tehee had with Barrett.
305. “Sanjeevi said ‘I just want to go to school.’” Sanjeevi “was upset because” the
“faculty in her department believed her complaint [only] amounted to a ‘conflict between
students’. She said she was trying to do her work but was being bullied.”
47
306. During her interview with Sturgeon, Sanjeevi stated twice that she was
“depressed”.
307. Sturgeon explained options to Sanjeevi and the two of them agreed that Sanjeevi
would take a few days to consider them. Sturgeon also provided Sanjeevi contact information for
USU’s Counseling and Psychological Services program (“CAPS”) and pointed her to USU
Policies 303 and 305.
308. USU Policy 303 is the University’s Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Policy,
and USU Policy 305 is the University’s policy regarding Discrimination.
309. This same day Peacock emailed Sturgeon, stating: “We have been trying to
informally remediate the situation here but I think things have gotten worse . . . [A]t this point
the situation seems to be a bit of a mess. . . and additional students [are] getting caught up in all
of this. . . .”
310. On January 26, 2017, Sturgeon met with Peacock to discuss their respective
meetings with Sanjeevi.
311. On January 27, 2017, Sanjeevi met with Sturgeon again. They agreed that
Sturgeon would meet with Barrett personally and would do a training for the Department to
address the problems within the Department “that might affect them all.”
312. Peacock did not inform either Sanjeevi or Sturgeon that Barrett knew Sanjeevi
was one of the people who reported her.
48
313. On January 30, 2016 Sanjeevi met with Tehee about switching labs. Tehee agreed
and Sanjeevi emailed Sturgeon about this change and also stated that she would send Sturgeon
screen shots for documentation of her reports about Barrett.
314. This same day, Domenech Rodriguez emailed Peacock to let her know that
Sanjeevi would be moving to Domenech Rodriguez’ lab and noted that Sanjeevi “can’t tolerate
the situation with [Barrett].”
315. Upon information and belief, some of the harassment, bullying, and intimidation
of Sanjeevi occurred in her labs and classrooms, and all of the bullying of Sanjeevi was limited
to and occurred within Sanjeevi’s first-year cohort.
316. On January 31, 2017, Domenech Rodriguez introduced Sanjeevi to her new lab
via email.
317. This same day Peacock emailed Sturgeon, stating that Barrett had reported
“feel[ing] as though she is now being excluded and targeted by others”. According to Peacock’s
email, Barrett reported that she had put her belongings in a classroom before class and left the
room, but on returning at the start of class found that someone had moved her belongings, and
apparently her seat in class, away from a group of students. Barrett also reported that she had
been removed from group texts between students.
318. Peacock told Barrett “that instead of talking one-on-one with the students
involved she could either have a conversation with a neutral 3rd party present or express herself
using “‘I’ statements . . . in an e-mail. . . . [Peacock] also told [Barrett] if she did send an e-mail
49
she should wait at least an hour after drafting the e-mail then re-read it and think about how it
would be received before sending it.”
319. On February 2, 2017, Peacock and Sturgeon met with Barrett.
320. Sturgeon discussed the various problems with Barrett’s behavior. “Barrett said
that she doesn’t know where all of this is coming from . . . . She said she is a single mom and
does not often socialize with the cohort. She said she feels like she is excluded from the group”
and “didn’t know what [Sturgeon] was talking about [].” Barrett drew a contrast between herself
and Sanjeevi, asserting that when she had a problem with student harassment “she handled it
herself.”
321. Sanjeevi told other students that “in class, after [Barrett] had met with [Sturgeon],
[Sanjeevi] felt like [Barrett] was throwing daggers at her” and Sanjeevi “started questioning her
decision to report the behavior in the first place.”
322. Sanjeevi texted another classmate: “[E]very day I dread going to class now
because I sit 3 feet from my white bully.”
323. On February 3, 2017, Sanjeevi went to CAPS.
324. “CAPS is not often the best place” for Psychology students to go for help,
because “[i]ndependence of treatment is an issue. . . . [S]tudents are uncomfortable about seeking
services through CAPS, due to the probability of later being a practicum student there. . . .
Conversely, to request reimbursement for therapy elsewhere will identify [students] to the
program, which” may “have other consequences.” CAPS, though, was the only such resource
available at USU.
50
325. Domenech Rodriguez noted that these were long-standing issues with CAPS that
she “ha[d] attempted (mostly unsuccessfully) to problem solve with [her] own students over the
years.”
326. At CAPS, Sanjeevi was seen by Dr. David Bush, a licensed psychologist and the
Director of the CAPS program.
327. In his report, Bush notes that when Barrett “spread rumors” about Sanjeevi it
“may have contributed to [Sanjeevi’s] self-doubt and professional conflict.”
328. Bush refers to Barrett’s bullying as “trauma” or “traumatic” three times in his
report.
329. Bush reports that Sanjeevi was “[f]requently discouraged”, that she “struggles
with trust”, was “feeling unsupported”, and that Sanjeevi “report[ed] significant levels of
resentment.
330. Bush states that Sanjeevi “reports mild depression” but “[s]he displays more of
the affective dimensions of depression rather than physical symptoms or cognitive symptoms.”
Bush also reports that Sanjeevi’s stress levels “impact[] her sleep[,]” and that she had “stress
levels that approach clinical significance.”
331. In his report, Bush apparently assumed that some of Barrett’s rumors about
Sanjeevi were true. He stated that, consistent with the rumors Sanjeevi related, Sanjeevi “rarely
puts in the time required of a graduate student and tends to procrastinate. Her behavior was
observed by a fellow graduate student who complained and by Sanjeevi’s report, spread
rumors.” (emphasis added)
51
332. Bush had no basis for this assumption, or for his assertion about what a third-
party observed.
333. Bush also states: “As a psychologist, [Sanjeevi] may be reluctant to produce
anything with projective value” and “[m]ore importantly” Sanjeevi would not “qualify for future
work opportunities.” These highly critical statements would be hurtful and frightening to any
reasonable person, especially under these particular circumstances.
334. Sanjeevi brought Bush’s report to Domenech Rodriguez and told her:
“Victim blaming is never okay, and I’m getting very, very exhausted from
this. For the first time in my life I gathered enough courage to report a
White-skinned bully, but it has led to nothing but re-traumatization from
the school on every front. Him echoing the racism/victim blaming felt like
the last beating before getting knocked out.”
335. On February 8, 2017, Sanjeevi sent Domenech Rodriguez a draft of her
dissertation proposal, which was based on the very racism she said she had experienced in the
Department.
336. Sanjeevi’s proposal was to research “the experience of social stigma and
prejudice” by “minority doctoral students” in “mental health programs”, and would be based on
“[c]ontemporary research” that social stigma and prejudice are “associated with significant
psychological distress” and “linked to increased somatic symptoms, anxiety, . . . depression,
suicidal ideation” and “increased symptoms of depression over time.” (emphasis added)
337. Barrett began telling other students that Sanjeevi “simply had a conflict with her
because [Barrett] accidentally said something offensive to [Sanjeevi] once and that [Sanjeevi]
52
ke[pt] punishing her for it.” Blume and Barrett then told others in the department that Sanjeevi
“was crazy.”
338. On information and belief, during this same timeframe, the program sent a Mental
Health Survey to all the students in the Program, and Sanjeevi responded to it. The university did
not provide this survey in response to Plaintiff’s GRAMA request for Sanjeevi’s entire file.
339. On February 28, 2017, Sturgeon held the “respectful workplace training” for the
Department. According to other students, “[Barrett] and Josh Parmenter were not taking the
training seriously.” The training got mixed reviews from the students.
340. Students reported that the training was “about workplace relations” and “focused
on sexual harassment” but “did not include bullying.”
341. “There are obvious issues among the students in the program, but this training
was too ambiguous to address the current main concerns.”
342. “[T]he training itself came across a little too general.”
343. “The training did not address key areas that would have provided education or re-
education about racism/colorism/privilege, and how this impacts a person’s ability to report
harassment without repercussions/retaliation.”
344. It is “really important that the department recognize that there are colorist
hierarchies among minority groups, and that there are students who are lower down on the
hierarchy who feel afraid to speak up about racism/prejudice perpetrated by white skinned
minorities who have a lot more power” and are “much higher up in the hierarchy. . . . It is
important that the department . . . make academic [and] professional environments a safe place
53
even for minorities at the lower rungs of the minority hierarchy. Everyone, no matter their skin
color, deserves to feel valued, safe, and respected in their place of education . . . .”
345. “[T]here has been an uptick of racist and discriminatory issues within our
department since the 2016 presidential election campaigns began. It’s incredibly disheartening to
see those issues being swept under the rug, especially given that the program touts an emphasis
on diversity [and] multicultural issues. The fact that many of these issues are happening within
the minority student group, with preference being given according to privileges held, speaks
even more to the fact that they need to be addressed in a more explicit way.”
346. Despite the student feedback on the “respectful workplace training” failing to
address the real concerns about racially and culturally-based conflicts including bullying and its
impact, Peacock still failed to take reasonable steps to understand the complaints against Barrett
or to address the underlying failure of cultural competence in the Program.
347. Barrett started calling Sanjeevi things like “slut” and “whore” as they passed by
each other in the hallways.
348. Sanjeevi felt that Tehee was not only protecting Barrett, but also “egged on the
cruelty”; the Native American teacher was protecting her Native American protégé.
349. Other students described Barrett’s behavior toward Sanjeevi as “bullying”.
350. When discussing Barrett bullying Sanjeevi, one student called Barrett “a daemon
bitch with a black hole instead of a soul.”
351. Students thought the Department “racially discriminated” against Sanjeevi by “the
way [Sanjeevi] was treated when using her voice” to ask for help to stop the bullying.
54
352. Sanjeevi discussed Barrett’s bullying in her essay assignments. Sanjeevi said that
“[e]ncountering Racism even in graduate school in psychology reinforced a powerful lesson that
I learned my entire life: that I can put a nice suit on, but I can never take my skin off.”
353. In another assignment Sanjeevi states: “I am almost never comfortable attempting
to bring up cultural competence issues in white-dominated spaces; according to my learning
history, I will almost always end up with the ‘over-sensitive PoC [Person of Color] label.”
354. Students also noted that “Sanjeevi felt that she was labeled because of her race.”
355. One of Sanjeevi’s friends and classmates “personally heard several other more
senior international students mention their own poor treatment from the department, saying that
they’d been told to leave if they didn’t like the way things are done.”
356. On March 11, 2017, Barrett posted on social media that she attended a Native
American awards banquet with Blume and Tehee.
357. The bullying was affecting Sanjeevi academically. On March 17, 2017, Sanjeevi
told a friend and classmate that she “failed another assignment today simply due to submitting it
5 hours late. My grade went from 192/200 to 152/200. . . . I feel pretty fucking defeated.”
358. That same day Barrett posted a picture on social media of herself and Barcus
horseback riding together, stating: “I came from a long line of strong brilliant women and I
continue to surround myself with amazing women like them. Today I am especially thankful for
this amazing woman! Words cannot express my gratitude for this powerful yet kind hearted role
model of mine.”
55
359. According to other students, Sanjeevi asked her professors for extensions of time
on assignments and accommodations for her mid-terms. Though the faculty was well aware of
the conflicts and emotional distress Sanjeevi was experiencing in the Program, Sanjeevi was
denied the help she needed because she “did not have [formal] accommodations from the
University.”
360. One of her peers stated: “It is especially mind blowing when you know the
cultural differences between the U.S. and Eastern cultures, which made it nearly impossible for
[Sanjeevi] to ask for help like this in the first place and then she was rejected and turned away.
This was yet another situation that [Sanjeevi] felt dismissed and as if she didn’t matter to the
University, or the department.”
361. It seems that even the professors themselves lacked cultural competence regarding
their students.
362. Students noted that Barrett “was tormenting [Sanjeevi] daily.”
363. Sanjeevi stopped attending cultural and social events. Others noticed that Sanjeevi
had become “despondent and withdrawn” and acted “defeated and tired.”
364. In March of 2017 “the Legislature of the state of Utah, the Governor concurring
therein, declare[d] mental health issues to be a public health crisis at Utah higher education
institutions” including USU; and as of 2017 “Utah State University. . . d[id] not meet
[International Association of Counseling Services] national recommendations” as to the number
of counselors needed for students to be able to adequately access treatment at the University.
365. On March 17, 2017, Sanjeevi met with Sturgeon again.
56
366. Sanjeevi explained that Barrett was still bullying her. In discussing the “respectful
workplace training” Sanjeevi explained that she “didn’t think that Barrett ha[d] comprehended
how she affected [Sanjeevi] and others. She said she is frustrated by her department because she
feels there was a lack of cultural competence among the faculty. She said when she first spoke
with them she felt ‘believed’ but after they spoke with Barrett [Sanjeevi’s] bullying experience
was minimized by saying there was ‘conflict between students.’”
367. Sturgeon’s follow up email to this meeting was just two sentences long.
368. Sanjeevi told a fellow student and friend that she “felt hopeless about things being
different because she felt that she had been dismissed by all the people in power she sought help
from.”
369. On March 18, 2017, Domenech Rodriguez sent an email to her lab regarding an
upcoming health fair, Feria de la Salud, which was scheduled for April 29, 2017. Domenech
Rodriguez states: “Every year we participate” in the health fair “and conduct screenings [sic]
for anxiety and depression . . . .” (emphasis added).
370. On March 20, 2017, Sanjeevi was participating in a cognition study at USU and
was required to fill out a suicide questionnaire, which she did. The university did not provide
Sanjeevi’s questionnaire in response to Plaintiff’s GRAMA request for her entire file.
371. In late March Sanjeevi asked for Domench Rodriguez’ nomination for a potential
scholarship for those with financial need. But on April 12, 2017, the scholarship application
deadline, Sanjeevi told Domenech Rodriguez “I thought about it and I do not feel comfortable
burdening your time with applications when this has not been an award-winning semester for
57
me.” Sanjeevi stated that she would try “to be more deserving . . . of [Domenech Rodriguez’s]
time.”
372. On April 9, 2017, Sanjeevi emailed Professor Veeder requesting to take an
‘incomplete’ in Veeder’s class and finish the class later on. Sanjeevi explained: “I am struggling
to keep up at the normal pace and I feel that falling behind on one assignment has led to falling
behind on the next one and so on.”
373. The entire faculty was aware of Sanjeevi’s “incomplete” grade with Veeder. In
fact, Sanjeevi’s ‘incomplete’ was discussed in a faculty meeting on April 18, 2017. Notes from
that meeting state: “Jerusha Sanjeevi will be taking an incomplete in Psy 6310 (Intellectual
Assessment) as she reportedly has too many demands to complete all assignments this semester.
A check on her performance in other courses indicates she is doing fine.”
374. No one asked Sanjeevi directly why she needed to take an incomplete, or how the
incomplete affected her, or whether she was “doing fine” otherwise.
375. In this same meeting Peacock discussed the “mixed” reports on what she called
the “Workplace Hostility presentation”, which she and Sturgeon had previously called the
“respectful workplace training.” The faculty was aware that this training did not have the desired
impact and that there were still problems in the Department.
376. In April, Barrett was spreading a rumor that Sanjeevi was “forcing [their] cohort
to exclude [Barrett] from social events.” Other students noted that “this, of course, was not the
case.” Barrett bullied other minorities in the cohort who happened to be the individuals that
58
“typically organi[zed] events”, so those people “d[id] not invite [Barrett]” to any of their social
gatherings “and it had nothing to do with [Sanjeevi].” Barrett still blamed Sanjeevi.
377. Barrett spread a rumor that Sanjeevi was “insulting [Barrett’s] race and saying
that she isn’t actually a minority.”
378. Barrett and Blume started telling others that Sanjeevi was causing a rift between
the students in the program, and that Domenech Rodriguez’ lab was “fighting with each other
over some people claiming that White skinned minorities ‘aren’t marginalized enough’ to
identify as a minority.”
379. On April 14, 2017, Barrett was given an award by the school.
380. To Sanjeevi it seemed that “the head of the department would rather save face by
keeping a student who is on a Native American scholarship than to stop the behavior and
discipline [Barrett].” Sanjeevi “felt that her voice, her feelings and her value as a student and
human being were completely disregarded.”
381. This same day, Domenech Rodriguez sent an email to her lab: “I am hearing
rumbles of discontent (for which I have no details) among lab members . . . related to diversity
issues. . . . I have no idea what happened. . . . [but] when folks from outside of the lab are coming
to me asking ‘what is happening in your lab?’, I worry because it hurts us all. . . . I trust you are
working on figuring out these challenges in a productive and collaborative manner . . . .”
382. According to one of Sanjeevi’s lab mates, “[t]his email confused all of us in the
lab, because as far as we knew all was well with us. [Sanjeevi] was under the impression that she
was now causing problems within our lab and even worse that maybe she [herself] actually was
59
problematic.” However, there was no indication that there was any discord in the lab, nor any
indication that Sanjeevi had conflict with the other lab members. In fact, the lab members met
together and confirmed as much.
383. Another student informed Sanjeevi that Barrett had posted “some smug thing on
Facebook” about it.
384. On April 15, 2017, Sanjeevi told a fellow student and friend that Barrett and
Blume “[ha]ve spread rumors that the lab has been fighting. Which makes me look bad [sic]
because I left one lab and went to another and now my new lab has ‘conflict’[.] This was
calculated. They knew exactly how it would look if they started this rumor. They knew what they
were doing and I can’t take it anymore. . . . The problem is that she can just continue to deny
that she started it. . . .That’s why she uses this style of bullying. Because she knows she can get
away with it. . . . I don’t know why the department isn’t believing me. I don’t know why they’re
letting her continue to bully and bully another student’s sanity away. I just don’t understand why
I matter so little to them.”
385. Sanjeevi also stated: “I haven’t been feeling like living and this just confirms that
I don’t want this life anymore. . . . [Barrett] and [Blume] are going to make someone commit
suicide someday.”
386. Later on, Sanjeevi told another student that she “decided to die” at this point, “but
didn’t go through with it largely because she was concerned that would give [Barrett] and
[Blume] verification that she ‘was crazy.’”
60
387. According to Barcus, Sanjeevi gave letters to several of her friends and peers
explaining her situation and feelings.
388. On April 17, 2017, Sanjeevi met with Professor Marietta Veeder after class.
Sanjeevi “was very tearful and had several concerns”. Sanjeevi told Veeder: “you are the most
approachable of my professors.”
389. Veeder and Domenech Rodriguez discussed this meeting over the phone the
following afternoon.
390. On Wednesday, April 19, 2017, Sanjeevi met with Domenech Rodriguez, once
again, about Barrett’s bullying.
391. During this meeting Domenech Rodriguez told Sanjeevi to bring her proof of the
bullying.
392. Barrett’s bullying was ongoing throughout the school year, included multiple
victims, and was reported by several students to faculty, the department head, and even the
student conduct office; however, these reports were repeatedly dismissed as a “conflict between
students” by Peacock and the Department.
393. Addressing and overcoming such “conflicts between students” before the students
become psychologists is precisely what the program purports to do.
394. The following afternoon, Thursday, April 20, 2017, Sanjeevi purchased a charcoal
grill that she would use to take her life.
61
395. On Friday, April 21, 2017, Sanjeevi spent part of the day with one of her good
friends and peers. Sanjeevi “cried while talking” with her friend “and kept asking, ‘Why don’t I
matter to the department?’”
396. Sanjeevi also told her friend: “If I end up dead it will be because of [Barrett] and
[Blume]. Because I can’t deal with their bullying anymore.”
397. Another of Sanjeevi’s friends and classmates was worried about Sanjeevi and
decided to try to “’use [her] white lady powers for good’ on Sanjeevi’s behalf.” That evening,
this student sent Stacy Sturgeon the following email:
398. Sanjeevi did not know that her classmate was trying to take action on her behalf,
or that she had sent this email.
399. That night Sanjeevi wrote one of her final Facebook posts:
62
“Adult bullying is hidden, but real. Adult bullies use tactics such as
malicious rumors and reputation smashing to torment their victim,
knowing full well that they cannot be easily caught through this method.
And yet institutions ask for “proof”, as if the middle school standards of
proof could apply in an adult context. Adult bullying may not leave
bruises on the face or wet hair from swirlies, but just because the injuries
are invisible, doesn’t mean that they’re not there. The next time someone,
even an adult, cries to you for help, believe them. Silence is complicity.
For gods’ sakes, believe them.”
400. At approximately 4:00 am on Saturday, April 22, in order to give herself
uninterrupted time to finally end her life, Sanjeevi sent text messages to several of her friends
telling them she was going on a trip to the desert.
401. At 7:24 am, Sanjeevi sent her own email to Sturgeon and copied Domenech
Rodriguez. The email states:
“[Barrett] has pervasively and relentlessly bullied and harassed me for one
academic year now. To be honest, I am defeated and at a loss as to what to
do at this point to make her stop. I have heard that she has been spreading
these rumors even to faculty. Because I do not have institutional power in
comparison to her, my faculty have not believed me even though I have
asked for help repeatedly. I do not know what to do at this point except
accept defeat. I just needed you to know the truth before I leave.”
402. On information and belief, that same morning Sanjeevi also sent Domenech
Rodriguez “a long email” where “she had detailed in the email all of the attempts she had made
to rectify or resolve the conflict with [Barrett]. . . . in an attempt to document the inaction of the
university in her case.”
403. In Sanjeevi’s suicide note she wrote:
“When something like this happens, people ask why. So I’m about
to tell you why, and spare you the wondering.”
63
“I have lived with depression for over half my life, and somehow
survived each episode. But each wave of sadness grew darker and longer .
. . . I looked and looked for a lifeline. Until I realized that I didn’t deserve
one. Because [the Department] succeeded at teaching me what poverty,
violence, rape, and hunger somehow never did. . . . When you dismissed
the bullying report, you provided a final confirmation that I did, in fact,
not matter. And I continued to drown in the weight of this pigment
marring my skin, otherizing me from my pure, white tormentors. I
drowned but you did not see, because I have always been invisible [to
you]. I was invisible to you, even while [Barrett] and [Blume] continued to
fabricate and spread the rumors that poisoned my life. And yet my cry for
help was met with disbelief. How could a White-skinned mother, the
purest of archetypes in the Western narratives, be a manipulative
sociopath who bullied victims for kicks and giggles? The answer is that
she could easily be. But you could not see past racial and colourist biases.
Beneath the countless shiny Instagram posts lay a cruel, calculated
violence that you could not see. When the bullying was augmented by
[Blume], it was met with the same disbelief. The innocence of blonde hair
and blue eyes could deny, with toxic ease, the “crazy” ramblings of this
dirty brown skin. I was bullied out of my lab, while my former advisor
egged on the cruelty. Then, because that wasn’t enough, the new wave of
rumors started. . . . Watching the department not only choose to not enact
consequences, but to give an award to the sick person who bullied me, was
the last nail in my coffin. My heart was broken.
“I hope to find a better place after this, but I do need to leave you with this
message: please do not bully, or be complicit to bullying, someone ever
again for the rest of your lives . . . . You don’t know what is going on in a
person’s life. And you don’t know how the things you do can be the final
push. The things you do can shatter someone completely.
“Please be kinder in the future.
“Please send my ashes to my parents.”
404. Over the weekend Sanjeevi died of acute carbon monoxide poisoning from the
charcoal grill she had purchased just a few days before.
405. Sanjeevi’s body was found in her bedroom on April 24, 2017.
64
406. That same day Domenech Rodriguez returned Sanjeevi’s April 22 email, and told
her that they needed to meet “to deal with this face to face” in order to “give[] the program the
ability to step in and articulate expectations for all and create contingencies.” Domenech
Rodriguez states that she asked Tehee and Galliher to have another conference call to discuss the
bullying.
407. The expectations and contingencies were already laid out in writing, taught to
every student in the Program, and the Program expressly required that they be followed in order
to remain in the program.
408. Domenech Rodriguez did not attempt to apply the same expectations and
contingencies for Sanjeevi that she had previously cited from the Graudate Handbook in
Barrett’s behalf.
PEACOCK DECLINES TO UNDERTAKE ANY DEPARTMENTAL INVESTIGATION
409. According to the Student Code, “Disciplinary actions regarding violations may be
taken at any time.”
410. Even though Sanjeevi specifically named her bullies as Barrett and Blume in her
suicide note, the Department neither investigated nor informed the Vice President for Student
Affairs of the misconduct.
411. On April 24, 2017, the day Sanjeevi’s body was found, Peacock sent an email to
all of the students in the Department informing them of Sanjeevi’s death. She noted that students
might “have some information on the situation”, but “asked [them] not to make any public
65
comments or statements or to include the students name in e-mails. [And to] refrain [sic] from
posting anything on social media or otherwise publicly commenting on this situation.”
412. The following day Professor Blais notified Peacock that students were
questioning “the role that bullying played in Sanjeevi’s passing.” Blais had explained to the
students that the department “does not have all of the info[rmation].”
413. Peacock responded “Thanks for stressing we don’t have the info[rmation] (and
probably never will)”
414. On April 26, 2017, the Psychology department held a “debriefing” about
Sanjeevi’s suicide.
415. Dr. David Bush noted concerns regarding “the safety of the student blamed for the
suicide” as CAPS had “noticed some hostility during the debriefing” after Sanjeevi’s death.
416. Dechamps emailed one of Sanjeevi’s classmates who had been vocal in criticizing
the Department and its handling of Barrett’s bullying.
417. Deschamps had also “heard other students say [things] in the aftermath of
[Sanjeevi’s] death” and asked if she could give this student’s information to President Cockett,
President of USU.
418. This student responded by giving Dechamps permission “as someone who knew
[Sanjeevi] and some of the circumstances around her death. Many other students have more
insight than I do, but many did not speak up because of their cultural backgrounds and feelings
of distrust.”
66
419. She continues: “I wasn’t limited in the same way, and I was angry and wanted
those above us to know that the current system failed [Sanjeevi]. . . . Many students and I have
talked about the circumstances surrounding her death, and many of us feel that the resources
available to students, especially an international female student of color, failed [Sanjeevi].”
420. Other students noted that “[Sanjeevi] was singled out by [Barrett] and
systematically undermined, cowed, and belittled until she went away.”
421. According to the faculty, students believed that Sanjeevi “was being bullied” and
that Barrett, “the person who was primarily doing the bullying[,] gets preferential treatment from
the Combined faculty[.]”
422. Students also confirmed to their professors that they knew Sanjeevi “already
suffered from depression” and “was not doing well”, and this information was given to Peacock
by the professors.
423. Barcus stated: “there are student[s] who saw things but they are afraid to come
forward.”
424. Peacock did not attempt to gather this information.
425. Peacock also stopped investigations by the faculty.
426. On May 22, 2017, just one month after Sanjeevi’s death, Crowley emailed
Peacock: “I want to be respectful of [Sanjeevi], but I am wondering if it makes sense to try to
collect the available ‘facts’ and information regarding events across the past year. I am
continually struck with what folks know that I had no awareness of and the reverse.” Peacock did
not respond, so Crowley sent the same message again the following morning.
67
427. Peacock replied: “[W]e will never be able to have all the ‘facts’ and information
collecting could be never-ending. . . . I’m very reluctant to try to piece together information
without a specific goal in mind.”
428. The following school year, professors noted that “people continue to take sides in
blaming 1-2 students”, namely Barrett and Blume, for Sanjeevi’s death.
429. Tschanz also noted to Scott Bates, the Interim Department Head of the
Psychology Department, the Associate Vice President and Associate Dean: “There is [] lingering
anger from the students that the dep[artment], university and probably faculty did not do enough
to help Sanjeevi who many feel w[as] being bullied.”
CAROLYN BARCUS
430. After Sanjeevi’s death, Professor Barcus, who, as noted earlier, was “instrumental
in developing” AISP and creating the relationship between the Department and the Society of
Indian Psychologists, and who had developed a personal relationship with Barrett, decided to
meet with several students from the Program that were not her own.
431. Barcus was “active and persistent” in meeting individually with multiple students
in the Program, “particularly those close to Sanjeevi who were more ‘bought in’” to the idea that
“being bullied” was “related to causes of the suicide”.
432. Barcus focused on “the associated negative reactions to Barrett that ha[d]
resulted” because of Sanjeevi’s death.
433. According to these students, some of these meetings lasted more than an hour,
and Barcus trued to impress upon them the argument that the Native Americans as a people had
68
suffered enough at the hands of white people with Borderline Personality Disorder and
Dissociative Identity Disorder, so Barrett, the Native American student, should not be held
accountable for her bullying behavior toward Sanjeevi.
434. According to multiple reports, Barcus told these students that “Sanjeevi had
Borderline Personality Disorder and . . . maybe Sanjeevi even had [Dissociative Identity
Disorder] and she was probably a different personality when she committed suicide.” Barcus
told these students that Sanjeevi “telling people about what she was going through prior to her
suicide was all manipulation”, and that “the letters Sanjeevi gave [her] friends” before she died
“were a way for Sanjeevi to control and manipulate her friend[s].”
435. Barcus had not received permission to assess Sanjeevi, nor did she inform
Sanjeevi of the opinions she had formed.
436. Students reported Barcus to their professors, stating that Barcus was “offensive
and victim blaming”, and that they were “distressed” because of these meetings.
437. When multiple students complained to multiple faculty members regarding
Barcus’ behavior, the faculty discussed the complaints via email.
438. On May 22, 2017, Professor Michael Levin emailed the other faculty regarding
Barcus’ actions to “find a way to transparently address and support what sounds like a notable
student concern.” Levin specifically noted the problem created by “the power differential”
between a student and a professor.
69
439. The faculty had a long conversation regarding whether Barcus’ discussions with
students were something the entire faculty should worry about, or just the individual professors
receiving complaints.
440. Peacock emailed Levin in a separate email stating: “I have heard the concerns you
outlined – but not directly from the students . . . [Barcus] did talk with me about some of this[].
So, I had been pondering if I should approach [Barcus] and how I would do that. . . .” However,
Peacock did not reach out to Barcus at that time.
441. Levin spoke with Barcus over the phone and thereafter provided in the email
chain a summary of their conversation, including those students Barcus was targeting and why.
Barcus replied “I have supported Ethnic Minority students for 32 years and just continued to do
it without letting you know that I was contacting your student. I am still officially on the payroll.
. . .”
442. Domenech Rodriguez had also received student complaints and had met with
Barcus to discuss the issue. She informed the faculty of their conversation on this same email
chain.
443. Barcus informed Domenech Rodriguez that she was “confident in her assessment”
that Sanjeevi suffered from Borderline Personality Disorder.
444. Barcus called Sanjeevi’s suicide “a clinically significant group process” and noted
that the other students “were participating in the broader group process” of what Sanjeevi
experienced. Barcus called this a “teaching moment” and intended to “teach” these students
using Sanjeevi as an example.
70
445. A month later the problem of student distress resulting from Barcus’s pressure
had not abated.
446. On June 16, 2017, Peacock finally emailed Barcus.
447. Peacock’s email states that she had received multiple student complaints about
Barcus’ “discussions” with students, and that there were students “who feel like your discussions
with them about Sanjeevi’s mental health are inappropriate and are trying to create a narrative
about the situation that is one that overlooks the complexity of the situation as well as Sanjeevi’s
own narrative. There is a concern that ‘the university’ is trying to hide or gloss over things and
tell the story it wants to tell – and your conversations are perceived . . . as part of this. . . . I’d like
to request that you rethink this path of action and also make sure, if you do talk to students, that
you are being clear that this is something you are doing as a concerned individual and long-time
mentor rather than a current faculty member in the department.”
448. Peacock’s email had no effect.
449. On August 11, 2017, Professor Rick Cruz emailed Peacock stating: “I met with
[redacted student] today. She expressed continued concern (and said some other students were
still concerned too) about [Barcus’] meeting that happened a couple of months ago. . . and it
sounds like [Barcus] is planning another one before classes start[.]” (ellipses in original) The
way Barcus was discussing these issues, “it came across like the faculty as a group were labeling
Sanjeevi as having [Borderline Personality Disorder] and [Dissociative Identity Disorder].” The
student reported that the students “fe[lt] like all faculty were disconnected” and either “placing
blame on Sanjeevi or [Barrett and Blume].”
71
450. Peacock did not address this further.
451. In March of 2018, Peacock, Domenech Rodriguez, and Galliher decided to award
Blume the Diversity Scholarship.
452. The Diversity Scholarship is the only scholarship award the Department offers for
“minority students”, and expressly states as part of the criteria for the award that “Preference is
given to Native American Students.”
453. In discussing this award Domenech Rodriguez states: “The only concern I would
have surrounds Sanjeevi’s death and others’ perception of [Blume]’s role in that situation. I have
a lot of ‘truthy’ and very little in the way of any real understanding of what transpired. If either
of you has any further knowledge (e.g., is there a police investigation? Is [Blume] implicated in
any of that?) that would change the result of this, then I would support and respect a decision not
to award. Is there any legal action pending against the department? Against [Blume]? If the
‘optics’ of it are OK, then I would say proceed with giving her the award.”
454. Galliher responded “I’m also not aware of anything but a prevailing narrative that
implicated [Blume] in Sanjeevi’s death.”
455. Despite the “prevailing narrative” Domenech Rodriguez and Galliher confirmed
to Peacock that Blume would be receiving the scholarship.
USU POLICIES
456. “In accordance with established laws and University policies, the University
prohibits discrimination and harassment based on race, color, religion, . . . national origin, . . .
disability . . . or any other status protected by University policy or local, state, or federal law.”
72
USU Policy 303.2 Section 2.1. This prohibition is reiterated in several other USU Policies, as
well as the Student Code and the Graduate Handbook.
457. The Student Code also states: “Students can reasonably expect the following: The
right to a learning environment free of harassment and unlawful discrimination.” Student Code
Article II Section II-2(A) (emphasis added).
458. On information and belief, Barrett selected Sanjeevi as her victim based on
Sanjeevi’s race, creed, color, religion, national origin, and gender, knowing Barrett would not be
held accountable due to her status as a Native American. On information and belief, the
Department allowed Barrett’s behavior to continue for the same reasons.
459. “Faculty members of Utah State University have the responsibility and authority
to determine, maintain, and enforce an atmosphere in their classrooms that is conducive to
teaching and learning, in accordance with University policy and practice . . . .” Student Code,
Article V, Section V-3 (C)(1)(a) (emphasis added).
460. According to the Student Code, “the conduct listed below . . . has been found to
interfere with University functions or threaten the well-being and educational purposes of
students. Any student who engages in proscribed conduct shall be subject to discipline under
Article V, Section V-5.” Article V, Section V-3(B) (emphasis added). The Student Code labels
this as “Misconduct.”
461. Misconduct includes, among other things, “[w]rongfully inflicting physical or
mental duress, harm, or abuse upon another person, including but not limited to verbal abuse,
threats and intimidation,” etc. Article V, Section V-3(B)(23) (emphasis added).
73
462. Misconduct also includes “any action taken or situations created, whether on or
off campus, which: (a) endangers the mental or physical health of or safety of another; or (b)
produces mental or physical discomfort, embarrassment, harassment, or ridicule of another; or
. . . (e) any activity that would subject the individual to extreme mental stress, such as sleep
deprivation . . . or conduct that subjects another to extreme embarrassment, shame, or
humiliation. . . .” Article V, Section V-3(B)(27) (emphasis added).
463. Barrett’s and Blume’s behavior was specifically prohibited by the Student Code.
464. Misconduct also includes “Disruptive Classroom Behavior” which “involves
physical action, verbal utterance, or other activities which interfere with . . . the ability of other
students to profit from the instructional program.” Article V, Section V-3(C).
465. According to the Student Code, when such behavior occurs, the faculty member
will work with the student to resolve the issue. If that doesn’t work, they will then include the
department head. Here, neither the “faculty member” (Tehee) nor the Department head
(Peacock) took reasonable steps to curtail prohibited behavior.
466. The policy continues: “If the department head . . . concurs with the faculty
member’s view that the problem has not been resolved, the situation shall be referred to the
Vice President for Student Affairs.” (emphasis added).
467. In their January emails, Peacock, Tehee, and Domenech Rodriguez all repeatedly
agreed that the situation had not been resolved and constituted on ongoing problem that was
“getting messy and ugly” and acknowledged that “additional students [were] getting caught up in
74
all of this”; however, they each failed to bring this problem to the Vice President of Student
Affairs as required by the Student Code.
468. Additionally, according to USU Policy “[a]ll Misconduct violations (or suspected
Misconduct violations) shall be reported to the Vice President for Student Affairs by faculty,
[and] staff . . . who have knowledge or information regarding the same.” Article V, Section V-3.
(emphasis added).
469. Sanjeevi reported Barrett’s Misconduct to, at minimum, the Department faculty:
her advisor, Melissa Tehee, Melanie Domenech Rodriguez, Susan Crowley, Renee Galliher, and
Marietta Veeder; to the Department Head of the Psychology Department, Gretchen Peacock; and
to the Director of USU’s Counseling and Psychology Services, David Bush. None of these
people complied with this policy.
470. Furthermore, “Responsible Employees are University employees who have the
authority to redress” or “duty to report incidents of . . . student misconduct, or who a student
could reasonably believe has this authority or duty.” It is reasonable that faculty and the
department head would have this authority and duty. Student Code Article 1, Section II-3(B)(1).
471. The Student Code also sets forth procedures for grievances, including those
regarding discrimination and harassment. Article VII.
472. The student “is encouraged, but not required,” to bring grievances to their
instructor in an attempt to resolve the problem. Sanjeevi met with Tehee, Crowley, and
Domenech Rodriguez regarding the bullying at the outset of the fall semester. Throughout the
school year Sanjeevi also met with Galliher and Veeder.
75
473. “If the grievance is not resolved in step 1, the grievant is encouraged, but not
required, to confer with the department head . . . who shall, within 30 days, conduct an inquiry
and attempt to resolve the matter as impartially and quickly as possible.” (emphasis added).
474. Sanjeevi brought her grievances to Peacock at the end of the fall semester.
Peacock was also aware of other student’s complaints of Barrett’s bullying. Peacock did not
conduct any inquiries into the multiple bullying reports she received, even though such inquiries
are required by the Student Code.
GRADUATE PROGRAM POLICIES AND REGULATIONS
475. In explaining the operation of the University, USU Policy states: “Each
department is an academic unit within its academic college. The Department Head is the leader
of the department . . . . A department head shall . . . direct departmental affairs in accordance
with department, college, and University policies and regulations.” USU Policy 104, 5.4 (2)
(emphasis added).
476. Peacock was obligated to direct the affairs of the Psychology department in
accordance with department, college, and University policies and regulations.
477. Peacock failed to do so.
478. The Graduate Handbook sets forth the policies and regulations for the
Department. Each of the incoming students is expected to know, understand, and abide by these
policies, and the faculty and department have the duty to enforce them.
479. The Graduate Handbook states:
“Evidence of bias, stereotyped thinking, and prejudicial beliefs and

attitudes will not go unchallenged, even when such behavior is
76
rationalized as being a function of ignorance, joking, cultural differences,

or substance abuse. When these actions result in physical or
psychological abuse, harassment, intimidation, substandard
psychological services or research, or violence against persons or
property, members of the training community will intervene
appropriately and in a manner consistent with relevant policies.”
480. The Graduate Handbook states that “[g]raduate students in the Psychology
Department are expected to conduct themselves in a professional manner at all times in line with
the USU Student Code. The Student Code is available on the web at
http://www.usu.edu/studentservices/studentcode/.”
481. Additionally, “graduate students are expected to maintain . . . high standards of
professional conduct and behavior. . . . [A]ny one or more of the factors listed below will result
in a student being considered for dismissal from the program” including “a) any characteristics
which would, in the judgment of the faculty, make the student unsuited to engage in a career in
psychology; b) conduct unbecoming of a professional psychologist (e.g., APA guidelines); or c)
failure to comply with departmental, college, and university regulations or procedures.” Graduate
Handbook p. 3. (emphasis added).
482. According to the requirements of the Program each incoming student is required
to complete the class titled Intro to the Combined Doctoral Program, or PSY 6850 (the “Intro
Class”) during their first semester.
483. According to the syllabus for the Intro Class, the text for the class was the
Graduate Handbook, APA Ethical Guidelines, and the USU Student Code.
484. The Student Code defines “Reasonable Care” as follows: “This term, which is
familiar to the law, means that the level of performance required of a faculty member is that
77
which is recognized in the profession”; the standards for the profession of Psychology are set
forth in the APA Code of Conduct, to which faculty and students in the Department are required
to adhere. USU Policy 403, 3.5.
PLAINTIFF’S INVESTIGATION
485. USU substantially complicated and delayed Plaintiff’s investigations into
Sanjeevi’s death.
486. Sanjeevi’s personal representative, through counsel, made a series of requests to
USU under Utah’s Government Records Access and Management Act (“GRAMA”). Utah Code
Ann. 63G et seq.
487. GRAMA requires that the University respond to a request “as soon as reasonably
possible, but no later than 10 business days after receiving a written request” even if the response
is to let the requesting party know when the records will be available.
488. USU repeatedly put off these requests for months at a time with promises of
upcoming “rolling production” and that they would be producing documents “in a few days” or
at least sometime “soon”.
489. Five months after one request, counsel paid USU $1,875.00 for USU to finally
produce the documents requested via GRAMA, that USU informed counsel they had already
“pulled” months before. However, it took an additional three months, weekly phone calls and
emails, and finally an appeal directly to the president of USU, for USU to finally send the
documents.
78
490. Even then, USU only produced a fraction of documents they found that were
responsive, and others that should exist in the Department’s files or computers pursuant to USU
policies and procedures, the Student Code, and the ethical standards of the American
Psychological Association.
491. USU refused to produce documentation of Sanjeevi’s bullying reports to the
Department or any notes from the repeated meetings within the Department regarding the
bullying issues.
492. USU refused to produce any information relating to Barcus’ observations or
diagnoses of Sanjeevi.
493. USU has its own police department and USU refused to send Plaintiff more than
snippets of the evidence and documentation the police department uncovered in its investigation
of Sanjeevi’s death, despite the police report listing the evidence and documentation in the police
department’s possession and where it was electronically stored. The GRAMA request pointed
directly to the location of this information as specified in the police report.
494. Knowing that a University police officer, Officer Erik Christensen
(“Christensen”) inadvertently destroyed the hard drive of Sanjeevi’s laptop computer during the
course of his investigation, the University refused to provide Sanjeevi’s counsel with a copy of
that hard drive, which Christensen notes in his report that he had made, even though the laptop
and everything on it was Sanjeevi’s personal property.
495. The University told Christensen that he is no longer allowed to speak with
Sanjeevi’s counsel.
79
496. Although USU confirmed that a student’s email account is considered personal
property and not subject to GRAMA limitations, USU refused to grant Sanjeevi’s personal
representative or counsel access to Sanjeevi’s email.
497. On information and belief, Sanjeevi’s email contains additional information
regarding the bullying, her attempts to get help from USU, and the widespread knowledge of the
students and faculty of the Department regarding these issues.
498. Plaintiff’s inability to access Sanjeevi’s hard drive and/or speak with Christensen
has impaired his ability, at this stage, to identify each instance of bullying Sanjeevi was subject
to, and the words and methods used by the bullies.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Ordinary Negligence/Wrongful Death – All Defendants)
499. Plaintiff reincorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs.
500. Plaintiff is the properly appointed personal representative for Sanjeevi and brings
claims against all Defendants, Defendants USU, Barcus, Tehee, and Peacock (collectively the
“USU Defendants”) and Defendants Barrett and Blume, for common-law negligence and
wrongful death under U.C.A. §78B-3-106(1).
501. As detailed above, the USU Defendants, as professors, advisors, supervisors,
licensed psychologists, and members of the APA, were in a special relationship with Sanjeevi.
502. This special relationship gave rise to a duty for the USU Defendants to employ
and teach cultural competence, to investigate, control, stop, or otherwise protect Sanjeevi from
the mental and emotional bullying of other students, and to intervene when a student’s “actions
80
result in phsycial or psychological abuse, harassment, intimidation, substandard psychological
services or research.”
503. The USU Defendants failed to perform their duty, despite having knowledge of
Barrett’s and Blume’s verbal and psychological abuse of Sanjeevi, and that Sanjeevi was subject
to the continuous and relentless bullying of Barrett and Blume for an entire school year. Indeed,
the USU Defendants ignored their responsibility to “intervene” and “challenge” their students’
“bias, stereotyped thinking, and prejudicial beliefs and attitudes,” as well as “actions [that]
result[ed] in phsycial or psychological abuse, harassment, intimidation, [and] substandard
psychological services[.]”
504. As a direct and proximate result of the USU Defendants’ failure, and their
negligent and careless acts and omissions, Sanjeevi died.
505. The USU Defendants’ conduct constituted a knowing and reckless indifference
toward Sanjeevi and her rights, and USU Defendants are subject to punitive damages pursuant to
Utah Code § 78B-8-201(1)(a).
506. Likewise, Defendants Barrett and Blume had a duty to their fellow student and
cohort member not to harass, abuse, or otherwise harm Sanjeevi.
507. Despite this duty, Defendants Barrett and Blume subjected Sanjeevi to continuous
and relentless bullying over the course of an entire school year.
508. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants Barrett and Blume’s actions,
Sanjeevi died.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Gross Negligence/Wrongful Death – USU Defendants)
81
509. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the averments set forth above.
510. Despite having a special relationship with and duty to protect Sanjeevi, the USU
Defendants failed to observe even slight care and acted with utter indifference to the well-being
of Sanjeevi.
511. As alleged more in-depth above, the USU Defendants had knowledge of Barrett’s
and Blume’s shocking verbal, mental, and emotional abuse of Sanjeevi for months, and failed to
take action to stop or prevent the bullying acts of Barrett and Blume.
512. Additionally, the USU Defendants were aware of the negative effect Barrett’s and
Blume’s bullying was having on Sanjeevi and her state of mind.
513. Despite this knowledge, the USU Defendants failed to intervene, stop, or
otherwise prevent Barrett’s and Blume’s bullying conduct from continuing, despite their duty to
intervene when a student’s “actions result in phsycial or psychological abuse, harassment,
intimidation, substandard psychological services or research.
514. As a direct and proximate result of the USU Defendants’ careless and indifferent
breach of their duty, Sanjeevi died.
Utah Code § 78B-8-201(1)(a).
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Breach of Contract – USU Defendants)
82
516. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the above
paragraphs.
517. Under Utah law, USU “is empowered to sue and be sued and to contract and be
contracted with.” Utah Code Ann. 53B-1-102(4).
518. The Student Code itself acknowledges that “the relationship between the students
and a university is now considered contractual.”
519. The Graduate Program also calls the Program of study a “contract between the
University and the student.”
520. USU offered Sanjeevi a position in the Psychology Ph.D. Program, which
Sanjeevi accepted.
521. As part of her acceptance, Sanjeevi agreed to abide by the Governing Documents
and the requirements found therein.
522. Sanjeevi had, in fact, been abiding by all of USU’s requirements: her tuition was
paid in full, she was enrolled in sufficient credit hours, she maintained the requisite Grade Point
Average to continue her student status, and acted professionally at all times in her in interactions
with faculty and fellow students.
523. The Defendats were, in turn, required to follow the Governing Documents which
represented a contract between USU and Sanjeevi, and Sanjeevi had a reasonable expectation
that her fellow students and professors would abide by the Governing Documents.
524. The Defendants failed to abide by the terms of the Governing Documents and
fulfill their contractual obligations to Sanjeevi.
83
525. As a direct result of Defendants’ breach of the contract, Sanjeevi died.
Utah Code § 78B-8-201(1)(a).
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Breach of the Implied Warranty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing – USU Defendants)
527. The allegations set forth above are herein incorporated by reference.
528. As established above, the USU Defendants and Sanjeevi entered into a contract
based on the policies promulgated by USU and the Governing Documents.
529. Utah law imputes an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing into every
contract. Under this covenant, the USU Defendants were obligated to discharge their
responsibilities and duties under the contract in good faith and in such a way as to meet
Sanjeevi’s justified expectations.
530. The USU Defendants’ conduct and omissions outlined herein were performed or
omitted with reckless disregard for Sanjeevi’s justified expectations under the contract.
531. The USU Defendants’ breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing.
532. This breach directly and proximately caused Sanjeevi’s death.
Utah Code § 78B-8-201(1)(a).
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
84
(Substantive Due Process, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – USU Defendants)
534. Plaintiff incorporates the above allegations by reference.
535. USU is a public, state-run educational institution and receives funding from the
federal government.
536. As supervisors, academic advisors, lab instructors, professors, and the head of
Sanjeevi’s department, the USU Defendants had a special relationship with Sanjeevi.
537. Acting under color of state law, and based on Sanjeevi’s race and the race of
Sanjeevi’s bullies, the USU Defendants deprived Sanjeevi of her right to an educational
environment free from discrimination, racism, and other mental and verbal abuse.
538. Additionally, as a direct result of the USU Defendants failure to stop the bullying
of Sanjeevi, an omission that was based on race and national origin, Sanjeevi was deprived of her
right to life and future familial associations.
539. The discriminatory acts and omission of the USU Defendants directly and
proximately resulted in Sanjeevi’s death.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Title VI, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d – USU Defendants)
540. The above-stated allegations are incorporated by reference.
541. USU receives federal financial assistance as a state-run educational institution.
542. Sanjeevi was subjected to racial and national origin harassment that seriously
limited and denied her ability to participate in or benefit from USU’s education programs and
activies.
85
543. As set forth above, based on Sanjeevi’s color, ethnicity, and national origin, the
USU Defendants intentionally failed to act with or teach cultural competence, or to investigate,
discipline, or otherwise address the bullying Sanjeevi was subject to.
544. USU knew of the racial and national origin harassment and failed to take
immediate or appropriate steps to investigate or otherwise correct the hostile environment
Sanjeevi was subject to, and that was rampant in the Program.
545. Put simply, Sanjeevi was denied the benefits of a full and fair investigation into
the bullying allegations, as is required by the USU psychology department policies and program,
and the protection such a requirement provides.
546. As a direct and proximate result of the USU Defendants’ intentional failure to
take action, Sanjeevi died.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Equal Protection, 14th Amendment – USU Defendants)
547. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the above
paragraphs.
548. Sanjeevi is a member of a protected class, based on her nationality and race.
549. Likewise, Sanjeevi has a right to an educational environment free from
discrimination, racism, and other mental and verbal abuse.
550. The USU Defendants refused to address and systematically ignored the
inappropriate harassment and abuse Barrett and Blume subjected Sanjeevi to, throughout the
academic year.
86
551. The USU Defendants’ decision not to investigate or address the bullying against
Sanjeevi was made deliberately and was based on Sanjeevi’s nationality and race.
552. At the very least, the USU Defendants’ were indifferent to Sanjeevi’s plight
because of her race and nationality.
553. The deliberate indifference of the USU Defendants directly and proximately
resulted in Sanjeevi’s death.
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress/Wrongful Death – Defendants Barrett and
Blume)
554. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth above.
555. Barrett and Blume intentionally engaged in conduct that was outrageous and
intolerable, and which offended the standards of decency and morality.
556. As set forth in more detail above, Barrett and Blume verbally abused, harassed,
and bullied Sanjeevi by starting and spreading rumors about Sanjeevi’s mental health and
academic abilities, and by mocking Sanjeevi to her face.
557. Blume and Barrett intended to cause emotional distress to Sanjeevi. Indeed,
Blume and Barrett knew their bullying was harming Sanjeevi and that Sanjeevi had complained
about their conduct numerous times. Despite this, the bullying did not stop and only got worse.
558. Sanjeevi suffered severe emotional distress as a direct and proximate result of
Barrett’s and Blume’s conduct, resulting in her death.
87
559. Barrett’s and Blume’s conduct constituted a knowing and reckless indifference
toward Sanjeevi and her rights, and they are subject to punitive damages pursuant to Utah Code
§ 78B-8-201(1)(a).
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Wrongful Death - U.C.A. § 78B-3-106 – All Defendants)
560. The above allegations are incorporated herein.
561. Sanjeevi’s death was caused by the negligence the USU Defendants and the
wrongful acts of Barrett and Blume.
562. As a result of Sanjeevi’s death, the Plaintiff and Sanjeevi’s family suffered a loss
of Sanjeevi’s love, companionship, society, comfort, pleasure, advice, care, protection and
affection.
563. Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for damages, including punitive damages, caused
by Sanjeevi’s wrongful death.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the following relief:
1. On the First Claim for Relief, for a judgment against all Defendants, in an amount
to be determined at trial, together with interest, attorney’s fees, and costs as provided by law;
2. On the Second Claim for Relief, for a judgment against the USU Defendants, in
an amount to be determined at trial, together with interest, attorney’s fees, and costs as provided
by law;
88
3. On the Third Claim for Relief, for a judgment against the USU Defendants,
jointly and severally, in an amount to be determined at trial, together with interest, attorney’s
fees, and costs as provided by law;
4. On the Fourth Claim for Relief, for a judgment against the USU Defendants,
5. On the Fifth Claim for Relief, for a judgment against the USU Defendants, jointly
and severally, in an amount to be determined at trial, together with interest, attorney’s fees, and
costs as provided by law;
6. On the Sixth Claim for Relief, for a judgment against the USU Defendants, jointly
and severally, in an amount to be determined at trial, together with interest, attorney’s fees, and
costs as provided by law;
7. On the Seventh Claim for Relief, for a judgment against the USU Defendants,
8. On the Eighth Claim for Relief, for judgment against Defendants Barrett and
Blume, as individuals, jointly and severally, in an amount to be determined at trial, together with
interest, attorney’s fees, and costs as provided by law;
9. On the Ninth Claim for Relief, for judgment against all Defendants, jointly and
severally, in an amount to be determined at trial, together with interest, attorney’s fees, and costs
as provided by law; and
89
10. For such other and further relief as the Court deems warranted under the
circumstances.
Dated: August 1, 2019
ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
/s/ Richard A. Kaplan .

Richard A. Kaplan
Krystaly N. Koch
Jacob D. Barney
Attorneys for Plaintiff
90

Complaint - Bick vs. Utah State University

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Complaint - Bick vs. Utah State University

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Case 1:19-cv-00084-PMW Document 2 Filed 08/01/19 Page 1 of 90

ANDERSON & KARRENBERG

Attorneys for Matthew Bick

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MATTHEW BICK as personal representative

UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY, CAROLYN Civil No. 1:19-cv-00084-PMW

Matthew Bick, as personal representative of Jerusha Sanjeevi, deceased, by and through

(collectively “Defendants”) as follows:

1. This is a case about a university clinical and counseling psychology training

precluded or substantially interfered with sound, objective, professional judgment and

Program (“Combined Program” or “Program”).

of compensatory and punitive damages.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. Plaintiff reincorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs.

5. Venue is appropriate in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and (2).

6. Plaintiff Matthew Bick is the court-appointed personal representative of Jerusha

7. Utah State University (“USU”) is a state institution of higher education located in

Cache County, Utah.

8. Upon information and belief, defendant Carolyn Barcus (hereinafter “Barcus”) is

this Complaint was a licensed psychologist, a member of the American Psychological

Association, and a professor of psychology and employee of USU.

9. Upon information and belief, defendant Melissa Tehee (hereinafter “Tehee”) is an

Complaint was a member of the American Psychological Association, and a professor of

psychology and employee of USU.

10. Upon information and belief, defendant Gretchen Peacock (hereinafter

allegations in this Complaint was a licensed psychologist, a member of the American

Psychological Association, and a professor of psychology and employee of USU.

in the clinical and counseling psychology program at USU.

representative of Jerusha Sanjeevi, on behalf of her family in Malaysia.

heritage, a small minority in Malaysia.

whenever she could.

States to further pursue her education.

signing student loans and occasionally sending small amounts of money.

19. After graduation from Bemidji, Sanjeevi transferred to Minnesota State

University, Mankato to pursue her Masters degree in psychology.

famous spicy soup” to both her peers and professors.

brought awareness to diversity, suicide prevention, and rape victims.

accomplish[ed] the tasks that she has promised.”

27. At Mankato, Sanjeevi received a Graduate Assistantship in which she “provided

and diverse learning environment.”

touted its diversity orally and in published and web-based content.

Tehee’s lab in that Program.

“inclusive and diverse learning environment.”

37. In response, Tehee praised the Department’s multicultural and cultural

41. USU created, funded, promoted, and supervised a program of affirmative

outreach to Native American psychology students and faculty.

known and foreseeable harm to participants in the Program.

43. USU “launched a force or instrument of potential harm.”

identifying and addressing culturally-based conflicts before they become “injurious.”

USU’S PURPORTED COMMITMENT TO DIVERSITY-BASED TRAINING

Program itself (the “Graduate Handbook”).

included instruction in “cultural competence” taught by Defendants Tehee and Barcus.

48. According to the Graduate Handbook, additional classes and training in

arise in diverse populations sixteen different times. For example:

of Utah State University’s Combined Clinical/Counseling/School Psychology training program.

American Psychological Association’s Ethical Principles and Code of Conduct. . . .” (emphasis

developmental training approach that is designed to support the acquisition of professional

54. “Trainers . . . support individual trainees in the process of developing

competencies to work with diverse populations.”

in a variety of activities/settings . . .” including “the ways in which student-trainees relate to . . .

57. “The Program is organized to emphasize general preparation in . . . sensitivity to

NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH AT USU

to Native American students and faculty.

and scholarships to overcoming “cultural misunderstandings”, and offers a minor in Native