IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR STORY COUNTY ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR STORY COUNTY LAURA SMARANDESCU, vs. Plaintiff, IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, STEVEN LEATH, JONATHAN WICKERT, SRIDHAR RAMASWAMI, STEPHEN KIM, JOHN WONG, SEKAR RAJU, SANJEEV AGGARWAL, RUSS LACZNIAK AND DAVID SPALDING, Defendants. NO. PETITION AND JURY DEMAND Plaintiff states: 1. Plaintiff is an individual resident of the state of Iowa. 2. Defendant Iowa State University of Science and Technology ( ISU is a public educational institution created under Iowa law. 3. Defendant Steven Leath is an individual who, at material times, was a resident of the state of Iowa. 4. Defendant Jonathan Wickert is an individual who, at material times, was a resident of the state of Iowa. 5. Defendant Sridhar Ramaswami is an individual who, at material times, was a resident of the state of Iowa. 6. Defendant Stephen Kim is an individual who, at material times, was a resident of the state of Iowa.

7. Defendant John Wong is an individual who, at material times, was a resident of the state of Iowa. 8. Defendant Sekar Raju is an individual who, at material times, was a resident of the state of Iowa. 9. Defendant Sanjeev Aggarwal is an individual who, at material times, was a resident of the state of Iowa. 10. Defendant Russ Laczniak is an individual who, at material times, was a resident of the state of Iowa. 11. Defendant David Spalding is an individual who, at material times, was a resident of the state of Iowa 12. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was employed by ISU as an Assistant Professor of Marketing in the College of Business (the College. 13. Plaintiff began working for ISU in June 2007 as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Marketing (the Marketing Department in ISU s College of Business (the College. 14. In 2010, the Plaintiff s probationary period was extended by 3 years, as the Marketing Department chair, College committee and College dean concluded that she was making good progress toward tenure in terms of research and teaching. 15. The Plaintiff was annually evaluated by the Marketing Department chair and her performance met the expectations every year for research, teaching and service. 16. In August 2014, the Plaintiff made application at ISU for promotion to the position of Associate Professor with tenure. 2

17. The Plaintiff s application for promotion was initially considered by the Promotion and Tenure Committee of the Marketing Department. The members of that committee (the Marketing P&T Committee were Defendants Ramaswami, Kim, Wong, Raju, and Aggarwal. Following their review, those defendants recommended that the Plaintiff s application be denied. 18. The Plaintiff s application for promotion and the recommendation of the Marketing P&T Committee were then reviewed by Defendant Laczniak, the Chair of the Marketing Department and he also recommended denial of the application. 19. The Plaintiff s application for promotion and Defendant Laczniak s recommendation were then reviewed by the College and its promotion and tenure committee. The chair of that College committee was Defendant Ramaswami, who was also a member of the Marketing Department committee. Both that committee and Defendant Spalding, the Dean of the College, recommended that Plaintiff s application be denied. 20. Thereafter, Defendant Wickert, the ISU Provost, reviewed the Plaintiff s application for promotion and recommended to Defendant Leath, ISU s President, that it be denied. 21. By written notice dated March 27, 2015, Defendant Leath, ISU s President, denied the Plaintiff s application for promotion. 22. Plaintiff s application for promotion was denied even though her qualifications, research and teaching record were as good or better than male assistant professors previously awarded promotion to associate professor in the College of Business. 23. The Plaintiff appealed the tenure decision through ISU s available grievance mechanisms. According to the ISU Faculty Handbook grievance procedures, she filed an appeal 3

against Defendant Leath s decision with the Faculty Senate Appeals Committee which appointed an investigative committee to examine the case. 24. Defendants Leath and Wickert improperly interfered with the appeal process and directed the investigative committee of the Faculty Senate Appeals Committee to limit its review to procedural issues and to not address the merits of Plaintiff s application for promotion. 25. In the fall of 2015, the full Faculty Senate Appeals Committee agreed with Plaintiff and the investigative committee report and voted 22-2 that the tenure process was flawed, in violation of the Faculty Handbook, and recommended that the Plaintiff s tenure process be redone, and the Plaintiff be offered an extension of her employment contract. 26. The final action in denying Plaintiff s application for promotion was taken by ISU S President, Defendant Leath, on November 3, 2015, when he denied the recommendation of the Faculty Senate Appeals Committee to redo the tenure process and extend the Plaintiff s contract. 27. Under ISU rules, as a result of the denial of Plaintiff s application for promotion, she was forced to leave her employment at ISU within 6 months. 28. ISU s denial of Plaintiff s application for promotion was based upon recommendations and decisions made by the promotion and tenure committees of the Marketing Department and the College and wrongful and unlawful acts of those committees, their members, and ISU administrators. 29. The Plaintiff had a constitutionally protected property interest in her employment at ISU and in her rights and opportunities under the ISU Faculty Handbook, the College s governance documents, the Marketing Department s governance documents, and all other governing documents of ISU applicable to her. 4

30. Defendants have engaged in wrongful, unlawful, and discriminatory conduct directed at the Plaintiff because she is female. 31. The Plaintiff was subject to adverse employment action on the basis of her sex. 32. The Defendants acts and/or omissions were undertaken under the color of state law. 33. The Defendants wrongful acts damaged the Plaintiff s reputation so severely that her associational and/or employment opportunities were and continue to be impaired thus depriving her of her liberty. 34. The Plaintiff was not afforded notice and opportunity to be heard with regard to some of the individual Defendants wrongful conduct. 35. Defendants wrongful conduct includes the use of improper procedures and the failure to follow applicable ISU policies, procedures, governance documents, and faculty handbook provisions relating to the Plaintiff s application for promotion and tenure. 36. The Defendants acts and/or omissions and ISU s promotion process as applied to the Plaintiff were arbitrary, capricious, and unlawfully discriminatory and failed to meet the basic standards of due process. 37. The wrongful conduct of the Defendants included, but was not limited to, the improper, arbitrary, and capricious acts and omissions described and referenced in the reports issued by ISU s Faculty Senate Committee on Appeals, its Ad Hoc Investigative Committee, and the Plaintiff s responses to the committee and department chair reports. Those committees found that Plaintiff s application for promotion had been wrongfully denied as a result of ISU s improper procedures and its employment of arbitrary and capricious criteria in considering and processing her application. 5

38. Defendants wrongful conduct included but was not limited to the following arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory acts and omissions: (a Failure to comply with established procedures outlined in the Marketing Department governance document; (b failure to comply with tenure and promotion procedures outlined in the College s governance documents (c failure to comply with established procedures of ISU in connection with the tenure and promotion process; (d use of procedures and process that was materially inconsistent with ISU promotion and tenure standards; (e failure to require external evaluators to follow ISU guidelines for promotion and tenure; (f restricting the amount of material and information that Plaintiff was permitted to submit for review by external evaluators and removing favorable information and documents from the submission to those evaluators; (g failure to conduct an unbiased review of the Marketing Department s actions and recommendations; and (h application of arbitrary and capricious criteria in assessing Plaintiff s research, scholarship, and teaching. 39. On August 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint of discrimination with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission ( ICRC. Plaintiff understands that complaint was then cross-filed with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ( EEOC. Plaintiff has requested and received communications from those agencies confirming her right to institute 6

civil actions under the Iowa Civil Rights Act and under Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. 40. At all relevant times, the individual Defendants acted under the color of state law and are sued in their individual capacity for purposes of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. 41. The Plaintiff has been damaged and will continue to be damaged as a result of the Defendants wrongful conduct. 42. The Plaintiff is entitled to a monetary judgment in an amount exceeding this Court s jurisdictional minimum, together with an award of attorney s fees and costs. 43. The conduct of the Defendants was willful and wanton and in reckless disregard of Plaintiff s rights. COUNT I UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE IOWA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT (IOWA CODE CH. 216 44. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 43 above. 45. Defendants conduct as alleged above violates the provisions of the Iowa Civil Rights Act, Chapter 216 of the Code of Iowa, prohibiting sex discrimination in employment. 46. Plaintiff is entitled to recover judgment in an amount fairly compensating her for her injuries and damages together with attorney s fees, expenses of litigation and court costs, and she is further entitled to such orders as may be appropriate granting her affirmative relief rectifying the wrongful actions taken against her, as well as any other injunctive, affirmative or equitable relief the Court deems appropriate. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount fully sufficient to compensate her for her injuries and damages, together 7

with attorney s fees, expenses of litigation and court costs, as well as such orders as may be appropriate granting her affirmative relief rectifying the wrongful actions taken against her, as well as any other injunctive, affirmative or equitable relief the Court deems appropriate. COUNT II UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION UNDER TITLE VII 47. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 46 above. 48. Defendants conduct as alleged above violates the provisions of Title VII of the United States Code, prohibiting sex discrimination in employment. 49. Plaintiff is entitled to recover judgment in an amount fairly compensating her for her injuries and damages together with attorney s fees, expenses of litigation and court costs, and she is further entitled to such orders as may be appropriate granting her affirmative relief rectifying the wrongful actions taken against her, as well as any other injunctive, affirmative or equitable relief the Court deems appropriate. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount fully sufficient to compensate her for her injuries and damages, together with attorney s fees, expenses of litigation and court costs, as well as such orders as may be appropriate granting her affirmative relief rectifying the wrongful actions taken against her, as well as any other injunctive, affirmative or equitable relief the Court deems appropriate. COUNT III BREACH OF CONTRACT 50. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 49 above. 8

51. Established contractual provisions, policies and procedures govern the terms and conditions of the Plaintiff s employment with ISU. 52. The terms and conditions of the Plaintiff s contract for employment with ISU have been violated. 53. The Defendants wrongful conduct in violation of the Plaintiff s employment contract includes but is not limited to acts or omissions in violation of ISU governance documents, policies, and/or provisions of the faculty handbook. 54. Defendants failure to act in accordance with the applicable ISU governance documents, policies, and/or provisions of the faculty handbook violated the Plaintiff s contractual rights. 55. The Plaintiff has exhausted all available administrative remedies and/or exhaustion of administrative remedies would be futile. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount fully sufficient to compensate her for her damages and for such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate. COUNT IV VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND FIFTH AMENDMENT; 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983 56. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 55 above. 57. The Defendants wrongful acts and/or omissions deprived the Plaintiff of her Constitutional rights to equal protection pursuant to the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 9

WHEREFORE Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants Leath, Ramaswami, Kim, Wong, Raju, Aggarwal, Laczniak, and Spalding, jointly and severally, in an amount fully sufficient to compensate her for her damages, for punitive damages, attorney fees and costs, and for such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate. COUNT V VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND FIFTH AMENDMENT; 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983 58. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 57 above. 59. The Defendants wrongful acts and/or omissions deprived the Plaintiff of her Constitutional rights to procedural due process pursuant to the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution. WHEREFORE Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants Leath, Ramaswami, Kim, Wong, Raju, Aggarwal, Laczniak, and Spalding, jointly and severally, in an amount fully sufficient to compensate her for her damages, for punitive damages, attorney fees and costs, and for such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate. COUNT VI VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND FIFTH AMENDMENT; 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983 60. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 59 above. 61. The Defendants wrongful acts and/or omissions deprived the Plaintiff of her Constitutional rights to substantive due process pursuant to the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 10