Andrew Crighton
News Editor
Idaho State University is currently one of two defendants in a lawsuit from a former employee, Kelly Pokorny.
Pokorny was the former education director at the Idaho Museum of Natural History, and claims that her supervisor at the time, Herb Maschner, sexually harassed her beginning in July of 2013.
The lawsuit names ISU as a defendant because Pokorny claims that the university played part in not properly handling the sexual harassment complaint and alleged retaliation against her by Maschner.
Pokorny seeks damages in excess of $10,000 for lost benefits and used paid-time-off, lost wages, medical/counseling expenses, emotional harm and attorney and litigation costs.
According to the complaint and demand for jury trial filed within the Idaho State courts, Pokorny claimed on October 25, 2013 Maschner grabbed Pokorny by the buttocks and kissed her on the lips.
Once Pokorny’s complaint was filed with the university, the Equal Opportunity Office conducted an investigation. The findings concluded that the sexual harassment had occurred, an alternative version of events claimed by Maschner did not occur and suggested that Maschner be suspended without pay and go through a sexual harassment training course among other things.
Following the investigation, on December 3, 2014, the Idaho Human Rights Commission issued a ‘right to sue letter’.
If an individual wishes to take their employer to court over a discrimination based charge, they must receive this ‘right to sue letter’ either from the Federal EEOC, or their state branch, in this case the IHRC.
As part of ISU’s EEOC investigation recommendations, Pokorny was to either be allowed to return to her job or receive an equivalent position in a different department.
ISU allegedly pressured Pokorny to take a different position, one that was not equivalent.
Pokorny claims she was placed into the basement of the Administration building with no phone, computer or tasks to complete.
This allegation is expressly denied by the university in its answer to complaint and demand for jury trial.
Within this document, the university denies the claims on several bases. When it comes to the sexual harassment itself, the defense claims there are “differing accounts of the alleged incident.”
After addressing all claims made by the plaintiff, the university put forward six defensive arguments. These include that if any damages occurred it was because of her own and/or a third party’s conduct, not the conduct of ISU. It is argued that Pokorny failed to mitigate her damages, meaning she did not make reasonable attempts to limit the amount of damage she suffered, ISU took disciplinary action against Maschner, there was no retaliation and that Pokorny failed to use the protections offered to her by the university.
Until October 17, 2016 ISU has attempted to get the case thrown out or resolved outside of court. On that date, a district judge set a formal pre-trial conference for some time next month.
ISU was asked to comment. Policy does not allow the university to comment on pending litigation, according to Stuart Summers, vice president for marketing and communications.
This issue was brought up by an individual during the October 12 faculty meeting and Q&A period with Laura Woodworth-Ney, executive vice president and provost.
Woodworth-Ney said that, “We feel very good about the strength of [this] case.”
Pokorny and Maschner could not be reached for comment.
