Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Sabina Burton
1 follower -
Criminal Justice professor passionate about her job, her students, due process and fairness.
Criminal Justice professor passionate about her job, her students, due process and fairness.

1 follower


UW-Platteville's Chancellor Shields seems to have perfected the method of getting rid of whistleblowers. If we don't get the hint that we should leave "voluntarily" when after having to face an increasingly hostile work environment (which includes isolation, exclusion, character assassination, being called crazy, being threatened with physical violence) he uses false accusations and highly questionable "investigative" reports.

Since I helped a student of mine report being sexually harassed by a professor in our Criminal Justice Department I have been put on the “persona non-grata” list. The adverse actions have increased with time. One of my colleagues told me right after he learned that I reported the sexual harassment according to UWP policy: “You did what? You reported it? Are you crazy! Why don’t you send out your applications right now.” I thought he was overreacted back then in fall of 2012. Boy was I wrong.
Being a professor in Criminal Justice and having worked in the field I know how reports are done. I know that as the investigator you will be hold to your report. That is why you have to sign the report. If you falsify things on the report and it comes out, you will face serious consequences. Well, that is if you work for a decent department. It is all different here at Platteville. Since 2012 I have been given 2 Letters of Directions filled with false allegations and with directions that violate my constitutional rights. Right after then Dean Throop wrote her Letter of Direction against me she informed HR Director Lohmann shortly after that she would file a Complaint against me and she did, 2 months later based on something she could not have even known back then unless she had it already all planned out in late Oct. 2014. See, she falsely accused me of canceling class on Dec. 12, 2014 with help of dear Deb Rice (can you spell c-o-n-s-p-i-r-a-c-y) and threatened me with discipline. When I could prove that I did hold class that day she must have been so pissed off at me that she used that as reason to file her complaint with Chancellor Shields against me. Can you imagine that?
If you do that as a police officer the civilian can resist your orders, even the arrest lawfully. Again, not at Platteville. I think they view me as some kind of nasty beast there. Beasts don’t have rights, do they? If you speak up against sexual harassment, sexual violence at UWP you must somehow turn into a beast. The same applies when you speak up against misuse of funds (paid by students’ tuition). My rights have been taken from me, as they were taken from others before me and if things will not change will be taken from people after me. Some of the people affected were and will be students. Unless we act. The U.S. Constitution values Individual Rights so highly that they even apply to illegal immigrants, except that the constitution has no say in … you guessed it: Platteville or UWP to be exact. Platteville police have to observe the constitution.
There are serious problems in form of factual inaccuracies, subjective interpretations, and misquotations in the so called Roter Report. The March 2017 Roter Report is the third of three investigative reports against me. All three reports had serious flaws in them as will be outlined below.
I therefore, cannot accept the ‘Roter Report’ as the final report of Dr. Roter’s investigation for the following reasons:
1. Dr. Roter did not sign this important document.
2. The “Roter Report” misinterpreted my words numerous times in spite of the fact that the 2/9/17 meeting was audio recorded. Dr. Roter gave me a copy of her recording.
3. The “Roter Report” excluded material and pertinent information that I shared during our Feb 9, 2017 meeting including the material and very pertinent fact that the UWP administration denied my requested grievance hearings.
4. The “Roter Report” included opinions of the author that were stated as fact, without substantiation, despite Dr. Roter’s assurance that her function in this investigation was a ‘fact finding task only.’ For example, the “Roter Report” states as fact that I threatened and harassed colleagues and provided no substantiation of this. The “Roter Report” also described a meeting between a former graduate assistant and Dr. Dalecki as “mentoring” which is a clearly biased interpretation of the recording and not a fact.
5. The “Roter Report” circumscribed the investigation unfairly by limiting the scope of the investigation almost entirely to people against whom I have reported unfair treatment. This is evidence of a sham investigation.
6. The “Roter Report” did not include numerous pertinent and material facts such as that a UWP administrator referred to the former undergraduate student, who felt sexually harassed by Dr. Gibson, as a “biased student” as I explained in our interview. This omission of very pertinent and material information seems to contradict the position and function of a co-chair of a sexual assault, sexual harassment task force. It seems reasonable for the co-chair of that task force to make a determination whether the student was “biased” or whether she was a victim of “sexual harassment.” The report did not include this information and that makes one question whether a co-chair of that task force produced the report.
7. The “Roter Report” vaguely concluded that many of my recordings, which were not identified, are protected by law but did not identify which law protected them. This vague conclusion is a legal decision that you do not seem empowered to make as a fact finder yet it is part of the report.
8. The “Roter Report” calls Mr. Burton’s involvement in departmental matters “in appropriate [sic]” but Dr. Solar is the employee, not Mr. Burton. It seems that you are holding Mr. Burton to requirements that do not even apply to him, but do apply to Dr. Solar. The report does not indicate that Dr. Solar’s actions were inappropriate.
9. The report contains numerous other errors, omissions, misstatements and indications of bias against me.
The factual inaccurate ‘Roter Report’ follows a common theme of fabricating allegations against me.
Investigator Dale Burke’s report was initially withheld from me in violation of WI state law. I had to get the AG office involved to get the report. I got the report with a dismissal of the complaint letter.
1. Burke’s report didn’t have a signature on it. The report had serious flaws:
2. I was repeatedly misquoted despite the fact that Burke and I recorded the meeting on Oct. 6, 2016.
3. There were two separate reports filed even though the investigation into my charges against Rice were lumped in with the complaint that Rice filed against me.
4. The investigation was taken outside of the scope of the alleged allegations, which questions the sincerity and fairness of the investigation, i.e. I didn’t get a chance to defend myself against multiple additional allegations made against me.
5. Burke’s investigative report included factual inaccuracies, e.g., the alleged statement by HR Director Crowley that I had filed four (4) grievances against Rice, not just supporting but exceeding Rice’s claim that I filed three (3) grievances against her when in fact I had only filed one (1) grievance against Rice that UWP refused to hear without reason.
6. When I addressed this factual inaccuracy Burke ‘defended’ Crowley stated that the report was “edited” by a third person. The ‘edited’ sentence, however, has no resemblance to Burke’s original sentence. This strongly suggest that the ‘editor’ changed statements of the investigative report in order to justify severe discipline against me, i.e. termination.
(Interesting fact on the side: Burke was the UW-Madison police chief. I wonder how many times he has falsified police reports or helped in falsifying police reports to get rid of students or staff he didn’t like or was asked to ‘dispose.’)
Assistant Chancellor Dominick Barraclough’s Report from early Oct. 2015. I received the Barraclough Report on 12/9/2016 over 14 months after the report was finalized and only after complaining to the WI AG’s office that UWP was in violation of Open Records Law.
1. The Barraclough report was not signed by investigator Barraclough.
2. My former Atty Tim Hawks who attended the investigative meeting with Dr. Barraclough thought that the meeting went very well for me. In fact, I was able to successfully dispute Dr. Throop’s charges and support them with evidence. I submitted all evidence to Dr. Barraclough and Dr. Barraclough acknowledged receipt of the evidence.
3. I didn’t get a decision of Chancellor Shields on the Barraclough investigation until almost 12 months later and only after I repeatedly complaint about not being informed about the outcome of the investigation.
4. Chancellor Shields stated in his decision of Oct. 2016 that Throop’s Jan. 5, 2015 complaint had merit but that he decided not to act on it. If Dr. Barraclough indeed substantiated Dr. Throop’s serious allegations it does not make sense that Chancellor Shields wouldn’t issue any disciplinary measures.
5. The so called Barraclough report is full of inaccuracies and did not mention the evidence that I provided in my defense.

All three investigative reports into Complaints filed against me included inaccuracies that in each and every case affected me negatively. All three Investigative Reports miss the signature of the investigator. In all three cases Jennifer Sloan Lattis was the UW Legal Counsel advising the Chancellor. Investigator Burke admitted that his report was in fact inaccurate and that the inaccuracy was the result of a third person “editing” the report. However, falsifying facts is hardly an editing error.
Dr. Roter refused to answer my question whether the ‘Roter Report’ that Chancellor Shields emailed me (without cc’ing Dr. Roter but cc’ing Jennifer Lattis) was in fact her report. Dr. Roter forwarded my email to UW Counsel Lattis who stated that “the version that we received was the final version,” but failed to say it was Dr. Roter’s final version.
Jennifer Sloan Lattis is currently under investigation by the Wisconsin Office for Lawyer Regulation for unethical and harassing behavior. It appears that the investigation has stalled. The Lattis investigator stated in 2O16 that the university was not cooperating with his requests for documents. My open record request in Dec. 2016 revealed that my personnel file has been tampered with. I can prove that my file has important documents missing. I was also informed that there appears to be a bit of a conflict of interest for OLR as Lattis is somehow affiliated with OLR.
Jennifer Sloan Lattis is in possession of sworn statements that have disproven Dean Throop’s allegations against me as fabricated yet Lattis has not acted in her faculty as UW Legal Counsel and addressed the false allegations.
Jennifer Sloan Lattis has engaged or at least allowed severe character assassination against me. In fact without ever having met me she referred to me in a conversation with my former attorney Kennelly in fall of 2013 as “labile.” She also called me that at an HR meeting (I received documentation to that matter through discovery.) Jennifer Lattis was instrumental in requiring the April 2013 grievance committee to rediscuss my grievance against my former chair taking out any reference to sexual harassment, sexual discrimination and retaliation.
In 2013 she did not intervened when Dean Throop stated in front of a grievance committee that I was unqualified to be chair because I couldn’t handle the hostility and adverse employment actions (retaliation) by my chair “on a local level.” Lattis, who also calls herself Shields’ personal attorney, seems to have taken a front and center role in the efforts to get rid of me.
I don’t know about you, dear reader, but to me that looks like the methods of a totalitarian ruler. This is hardly the United States of America unless people speak up against this unlawful, abusive behavior. So what side are you on?

Are you a lukewarm American or someone
who is proud of this country and the values and rights it stands?

Visit: and (search for BinaAgainstCorruption)

Add a comment...

It’s time for an update on my case again. I’ve been silent mainly because a lot has happened (legally speaking).

My attorney brought an action in federal court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution against Provost Throop, the members of the UWP Grievance committee and the UWS Regents on Jan. 16, 2017. Why? UW-Platteville is in violation of its own grievance policy. You can read the Federal Complaint on

In early February I had my meeting with Dr. Roter, the Investigator for Shields. I thought it went well (so did my attorney) but there is an interesting twist to the Roter report that I will tell you about later.

This month (March) we filed a new EEOC complaint. I will include it here as it is quite interesting.

Here it is:
This narrative details the discrimination and retaliation suffered by Dr. Sabina Burton. This narrative was authored by Dr. Burton’s retained attorney Kara Amouyal, Esq. of The Blake Horwitz Law Firm, LTD.

Dr. Sabina Burton is a tenured professor in the Criminal Justice Department at the University of Wisconsin – Platteville (“UWP”). On October 10, 2012, Dr. Burton intervened on behalf of a student who felt uncomfortable with the perceived sexual advances of another professor. Since that time, Dr. Burton has been subjected to consistent retaliation and harassment, resulting in a hostile work environment. Because of the retaliation and harassment, Dr. Burton was forced to file several EEOC complaints (443-2015-00090, 26G201301269C, 443-2016-01415) and two civil suits concerning those EEOC complaints (14-cv-00274, 17-cv-00036). Unfortunately, despite these actions, the retaliation that began in 2012 continues to this day. This complaint will outline the conduct violations of UWP and its agents that have not been previously adjudicated by the EEOC. However, in order to understand the context of these actions, a review of prior incidents is in order:


As stated above, on or around October 10, 2012, Dr. Burton reported to the Dean of Students (through the Dean’s assistant) and to Dr. Elizabeth Throop (the then-Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Education at UWP), that a student received a solicitous note from another professor. Dr. Burton reported that the student felt humiliated and upset by the note, and Dr. Throop agreed that the note could be interpreted as sexual harassment.

However, despite this, the reporting of the note and the student’s discomfort set off the harassment and retaliation that Dr. Burton still experiences. From that time until he was replaced in July of 2013, the then-chair of the Criminal Justice Department, Dr. Thomas Caywood, engaged in harassing and retaliatory activities such as: publicly criticizing Dr. Burton for the way in which she reported the note, refusing to allow Dr. Burton to chair search committees, refusing to schedule meetings to assist Dr. Burton in activities meant to build her professional resume, refusing Dr. Burton’s requests to teach certain classes, and refusing to respond to many of Dr. Burton’s emails or questions.

Finally, in March of 2013, after enduring this behavior for months, Dr. Burton filed a grievance against Dr. Caywood with the UWP Complaints and Grievances Committee (“the Committee”) The Committee found that Dr. Caywood had mishandled the situation regarding the October 2012 note, that Dr. Caywood had unreasonably withdrawn support for Dr. Burton’s efforts to build her professional resume, that Dr. Caywood’s actions had damaged Dr. Burton’s reputation and that the damage should be corrected.
Despite these severe findings against Dr. Caywood, Dr. Caywood was never disciplined for any interaction he had with or concerning Dr. Burton. As stated above, he continued to chair the Criminal Justice Department until July of 2013. Dr. Caywood continued to receive his full salary as chair and received public praise for his service by the UWP administration after he stepped down. This undoubtedly gave other faculty and staff the impression that Dr. Caywood did not do anything wrong in his public treatment of Dr. Burton and that Dr. Burton was overreacting or being a troublemaker by bringing a grievance against him. Further, by the time that the Committee made its findings in April and July of 2013, other faculty and staff’s attitude towards Dr. Burton had begun to turn in such a way that any time Dr. Burton attempted to stand up for herself or her rights or to tell her side of the story, she was seen as a troublemaker or was accused of harassing or bullying. Even Dr. Throop, who had originally agreed with Dr. Burton’s handling of the note , retaliated against Dr. Burton by withdrawing support for the above-mentioned resume-building activities.

In August of 2013, after not receiving any institutional support despite the Committee’s findings against Dr. Caywood, Dr. Burton filed an EEOC Complaint regarding the retaliation she had suffered. The new chair of the Criminal Justice Department, Dr. Michael Dalecki, immediately began to retaliate against Dr. Burton. On more than one occasion, Dr. Dalecki asked Dr. Burton to dismiss her EEOC Complaint. When Dr. Burton made it clear that she was going to file a lawsuit, Dr. Dalecki asked Dr. Burton not to do so, told her to “get over it”, and said “you can’t expect to file a lawsuit without consequences”. As a result of these actions, Dr. Burton filed a second EEOC Complaint, this time against Dr. Dalecki. Eight (8) days later, Dr. Throop sent Dr. Burton a Letter of Direction (“LOD”). This LOD, which remains in Dr. Burton’s personnel file, classified Dr. Burton as harassing and/or bullying other staff; however, the incidents listed by Dr. Throop were either factually inaccurate or were incidents based on protected activity on the part of Dr. Burton.

Dr. Burton filed a lawsuit against the UWP Board of Regents and Dr. Caywood, Dr. Throop, and Dr. Dalecki based on the above-described actions. The harassment, however, continued.

Because the LOD is a black mark on Dr. Burton’s personnel file, Dr. Burton filed a grievance with the Committee to have the LOD removed. Essentially, Dr. Burton asked the Committee for the chance to confront the allegations in the LOD and prove that they were (a) factually incorrect and/or (b) based on protected activity. Dr. Burton was denied the right to do so. Despite the fact that Dr. Burton filed her grievance in November of 2014 roughly 2 weeks after Dr. Throop issued the LOD, the Committee never set a date for a hearing. In October of 2015, Dr. Burton finally withdrew the grievance due to the amount of time that had elapsed since the grievance was filed and due to the fact that the subject matter of the grievance was addressed in Dr. Burton’s amended complaint in the original lawsuit.

In April of 2016, after the LOD had still not been removed from her personnel file, Dr. Burton renewed her grievance and, in writing, requested a hearing on the grievance. Dr. Burton made it clear, in writing, that her goal for the grievance was to have the LOD removed from her personnel file. Dr. Burton stated that she possessed testimony and documents from the original lawsuit that showed that the alleged incidents in the LOD involved protected activity and/or were factually incorrect. Despite this, the Committee still refused to give Dr. Burton a hearing, a violation of Dr. Burton’s procedural due process rights.


A. National Origin and/or Disability Discrimination

Deb Rice, a co-worker of Dr. Burton’s, has created a hostile work environment for Dr. Burton. It appears that Deb Rice’s discrimination, harassment, and retaliatory actions are because of Dr. Burton’s national origin (German) and/or because of a perceived mental illness (disability) on the part of Dr. Burton.

In November of 2014, Deb Rice made statements to members of the Criminal Justice Department and at least one student that (a) Dr. Burton has a mental illness and (b) Dr. Burton is prejudiced against East Germans. Deb Rice admitted to UWP administrators that she made these statements, but no discipline against her was ever undertaken. The outlandish and offensive nature of these claims is readily apparent.

In December of 2014, Deb Rice inexplicably falsely alleged that Dr. Burton had cancelled a class so that Dr. Burton could travel to Germany (Dr. Burton was born and raised in Germany and has family that lives in Germany). Dr. Burton was informed of impending disciplinary measures as a result of this completely untrue allegation. At the time, Dr. Burton did not know that it was Deb Rice who had made this claim. In fact, Dr. Burton did not learn this until October of 2015 despite repeated requests to the administration for the identity of the person who had made the claim.

Further, regarding Dr. Burton’s trip to Germany in December of 2014, Deb Rice claimed that Dr. Burton was “manic” and “irrational” because Dr. Burton traveled to Germany and back to the United States in the course of one weekend. In fact, Dr. Burton did this to see her dying god-father one last time but was forced to make it a short trip because of personal and professional obligations. Deb Rice, however, used this heartbreaking trip as another opportunity to harass Dr. Burton.

In the spring of 2015, Dr. Burton was forced to take FMLA due to severe ulcers. While Dr. Burton was gone, Deb Rice made comments to many co-workers, including interim chair Dr. Dalecki, questioning the legitimacy of Dr. Burton’s illness. This of course only furthered the toxic work environment as Dr. Burton was not there to defend herself. Further, in September of 2016, during the below-described investigation instigated by Deb Rice, Deb Rice made false claims to the investigator that Dr. Burton posted vacation photos to social medial during the FMLA leave. Not only do those comments belittle the serious medical issues that Dr. Burton was facing, but making those false statements during the course of the investigation threatened Dr. Burton’s employment and eroded her colleagues’ trust in Dr. Burton.

In April of 2016, Dr. Burton attempted to file a grievance against Deb Rice for these discriminatory and harassing comments. Just as with the grievance against Dr. Throop, UWP refused to hear the grievance.

In August of 2016, Deb Rice filed a complaint against Dr. Burton, which resulted in an investigation against Dr. Burton.

In September of 2016, Deb Rice alleged she believes that Dr. Burton has “undiagnosed and probably untreated, mental health issues”, that Dr. Burton has “fairly frequent episodes of manic behavior”, that Dr. Burton is “narcissistic” and that Dr. Burton’s tendency to put in long hours of work are “either a symptom of or a contributing factor to, [sic] any mental health issue that Burton may have”.

Deb Rice also stated that her relationship with Dr. Burton took a turn in 2013 when they went on an academic trip to Germany together. Deb Rice stated that Dr. Burton seemed “detached” during a tour of a Nazi concentration camp. Deb Rice then made false allegations that Dr. Burton’s father (a German national) had a relationship with Nazis. Finally, Deb Rice stated that Dr. Burton had previously insinuated (during a deposition) that Dr. Burton had Jewish heritage, which Deb Rice found “inconsistent” with Rice’s false allegation that Dr. Burton’s father was a Nazi/Nazi sympathizer/somehow connected to Nazis. These statements are outlandishly discriminatory; worse, these allegations were disseminated to the Chancellor of UWP and have made Dr. Burton feel marginalized in the workplace as Dr. Burton believes that Deb Rice has repeated such comments to their co-workers. Further, Deb Rice made accusations during the course of the investigation (e.g., that Dr. Burton had made comments about Deb Rice on Twitter, etc.) that were wholly without evidence. The only logical explanation is that Deb Rice meant these accusations to result in Dr. Burton’s termination. Despite the fact that UWP is aware of these outrageous accusations by Deb Rice, and despite the fact that Dr. Burton filed a complaint against Deb Rice for her continued discrimination, Deb Rice has never been disciplined.

B. Continued Harassment and Retaliation

1. Increased Scrutiny and Intimidation

As stated above, Deb Rice filed a complaint against Dr. Burton in August of 2016. As a result, Chancellor Shields began a formal investigation and threatened Dr. Burton with job termination. Chancellor Shields sent Dr. Burton a complaint via Certified Mail. In addition, he had a private investigator hand-deliver a copy of the complaint to her door. Because the complaint had already been mailed, via Certified Mail, the investigator was sent there with the sole purpose of informing Dr. Burton that she was under severe scrutiny and that she was reachable, even at her home. As stated in the EEOC compliance manual, heightening the level of scrutiny imposed on an employee constitutes actionable retaliation. It is clear that this investigation was initiated (as Chancellor Shields had the right to decline to investigate the complaint) to retaliate against Dr. Burton for her EEOC complaints and lawsuit.

2. Failure to Accommodate and Harassment

In early September of 2016, Dr. Burton suffered an unfortunate flare-up of her ulcers (mentioned above). Consequently, her doctor recommended that the investigation headed by Mr. Burke at the behest of Chancellor Shields be delayed by one month. Dr. Burton requested a delay in the investigation. The administration refused to provide any sort of accommodation and ordered Dr. Burton to meet with Mr. Burke against the opinion of a medical professional. The investigation caused Dr. Burton a significant amount of stress and worsened her already uncomfortable condition. In fact, as a result, Dr. Burton required medical treatment and was placed on sick leave for 2 days. This constitutes a failure to accommodate Dr. Burton’s serious medical condition.

This also constitutes retaliation for the grievances that Dr. Burton pursued. There is significant evidence supporting this assertion. The timing of this investigation directly followed the filing of an EEOC/OCR Complaint. Chancellor Shields even went so far as to admit that the investigation was in response to Dr. Burton’s request for an investigation into what she perceived as retaliation on the part of Dr. Strobl in blocking her grant writing efforts (previously complained about in another EEOC Complaint).

Towards the end of 2016, the administration also shifted Dr. Burton to a more cumbersome and less prestigious work schedule for the Spring 2017 semester. They assigned her to mainly introductory classes wherein if she were fired she could be easily replaced. As was decided in the 7th circuit case O'Neal v. City of Chi “repetitive reassignments negatively affecting plaintiff's eligibility to be promoted, and constitutes a materially adverse action”. Similarly, having Dr. Burton perform only introductory level work easily performed by any professor would affect her ability to secure a promotion, which is retaliatory.

3. Miscellaneous Actions

First, despite the seriousness of the above-described 2016 investigation (which, essentially, threatened Dr. Burton’s employment), the administration tried to withhold the investigator’s report from her. Dr. Burton eventually had to involve the Attorney General’s office to receive the report and, once she did receive the report, noticed many factual inaccuracies in it. For example, the investigator misquoted Dr. Burton repeatedly, despite having recorded their meeting. Further, the Human Resources Director had made a false claim that Dr. Burton had filed 4 grievances against Deb Rice when, in fact, Dr. Burton had filed only one (that the Grievances Committee refused to hear).

Second, in addition to the LOD from Dr. Throop remaining in Dr. Burton’s personnel file, Dr. Burton’s personnel file is not accurate and several important documents are missing. This is an adverse employment action that will have very serious consequences on Dr. Burton’s future advancement and employment.

Third, the chair of the Criminal Justice Department failed to conduct a peer teaching evaluation and instead assigned an evaluation score. Dr. Burton repeatedly complained of this but it was never remedied.

Fourth, Dr. Solar, another member of the Criminal Justice Department, threatened Dr. Burton with “consequences of his choosing” after a disagreement. A few days later, the UWP Police Chief, believed to have known Dr. Solar for many years, came to Dr. Burton’s office a few days later in full uniform. Dr. Burton felt intimidated and harassed by this unexpected and unusual visit. The Police Chief minimized Dr. Burton’s obvious discomfort and informed Dr. Burton that Dr. Burton was making her colleagues uncomfortable. Dr. Solar also falsely reported to the administration that Dr. Burton gave her husband access to her university email (which is a violation of university policy). This false claim forms part of the basis for the current investigation against Dr. Burton (discussed below).

4. Retaliatory Termination Proceedings

Finally, on January 3rd, 2017 Chancellor Shields began proceedings that could result in Dr. Burton’s termination. He did so based, in part, on the LOD that Dr. Throop wrote back in October of 2014 (the LOD that Dr. Burton had requested numerous times to have a hearing on so that she could defend herself against). The administration has initiated an investigation that could lead to termination proceedings against Dr. Burton.


Since Dr. Burton intervened on the behalf of a student in the fall of 2012 and participated in the ensuing EEOC process, she has become the target of vicious retaliation by both her fellow professors and the administration of the school. She has suffered numerous adverse actions ranging from intimidation to attempts to block her career aspirations to threatened termination. These actions constitute retaliation against an individual who participated in protected activity, and stand as clear violations against EEOC guidelines.

Further, Dr. Burton has suffered years of national origin and perceived disability discrimination at the hands of Deb Rice and the administration that refused to reprimand her.

Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. I look forward to hearing from you.


/s/ Kara Amouyal
Kara Amouyal, Esq.


Sad, isn't it? I don't get people. I don't get people that are either so corrupt or so weak to let this happen.

Sad, isn't it? I often marble that people can be that evil.
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Ha, the defendants' legal counsel had to ask for yet ANOTHER extension in their response to my appeal. Since I finally have an attorney who is not corrupt and put in a well written document to the appeal's court I have the defendants sweating. My appeal revealed major inconsistencies (plagiarism) of defendants (you can read their contradicting depositions and declarations yourself). Being the true underdog here who had to retain her own attorney I am facing the university's in house legal counsel and multiple attorneys of the WI Attorney General's Office. It is definitely a David v. Goliath battle here but with the support of you all I feel I have a real chance. Please share the article with as many people as possible (so far 8 have been written and more to come), point people to the site. I am dealing with serious threats from former Illinois small town police chiefs Solar and Hallman (Illinois is known for their serious police corruption issues) and had to deal with intimidation efforts by former chief Dave Cooper as well (who doesn't know anything about the case but felt the need to attack me anyway and repeat the lies of the administration).

Ever wondered why the U.S. Constitution lists Freedom of Speech as its first Amendment (and not the right to bear arms)? It is yours and mine strongest defense against a corrupt government. It allows me to expose the UW-systems' bullying tactics, their lies and abuse. The truth is my defense. They counter with lies, false allegations, intimidation, threats and withholding due process. Yay to the 1st Amendment!!!! Corrupt people fear nothing more than exposure and due process.

Time to clean up UW-Platteville and put students first again!

Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Spoiler alert: Thick sarcasm ahead (drip, drip, drip!). If you can't stand sarcasm please skip the introduction.

A few commenters on have tried to discredit me because I seek to address my damages in federal court, accusing me of seeking money and fame. Others tried to accuse me of wanting to burn down the entire school (a bit dramatic, wouldn’t you think?) or demanded that I lay out my intentions of the lawsuit.
A very interesting version of "victim-blaming." Yes, I am a victim of retaliation and discrimination even though I'd rather consider myself a fighter or a survivor. I have suffered severe damage to my health, financial damage, damage to my reputation, damage to my career. My family (husband and 2 daughters were affected deeply). Two work projects that I poured significant amount of time and sweat into were taken from me as punishment. Clearly damages that a court could address and if the jury would find the evidence in my favor I would rate compensation. Being compensated for loss and pain is greedy? Well, for those of you who put the burden on me imagine the following:
You are hit by another car, a municipal service vehicle. Your car spins out of control and damages an intersection (lighting, barriers, plants). Clearly, the community is affected by the accident. You are too: whiplash, cuts and bruises, pain, loss of income, totaled car. You sue the municipality as the employer of the service car driver who caused the accident and damages to you. Now the community members call you greedy. They demand to know what you plan to do about the damaged intersection. What about the new playground that was supposed to be built and that may not happen now because YOU want compensation for pain and loss of income (you greedy bastard!)? You could have just stayed home that day! Why the heck did you have to go out to get ice-cream anyway? So you sit down at your desk and write up a detailed plan of how you will use the money (that you will hopefully get through your lawsuit) to address other people’s concerns. Yes, their concern is more important than your damages. You wouldn’t want to be greedy, would you? And while you’re at it, defend yourself against being selfish and yes, you’re suing for damages because you want to see your picture in the newspaper, admit it, you want fame!
Well, fortunately I have thought long and hard in the past years of what my department, and UW-Platteville would need to overcome its problems. So I will entertain the burden you have placed on me, the victim. Oh btw, keep in mind that I will only get compensation if the court finds in favor of me. So yes, I planned this all out, because I am one greedy, fame hungry bitch.


What I would like to accomplish through my case being heard in court:

We used to have the best CJ program in the upper Midwest. We have lost that position in the past years. In 2014 two independent program evaluators assessed our FI program. Their report wasn’t good. One of them, a national expert, called the FI program a “train wreck.” The former director/coordinator of the program was accused of bribery. Our former chair said that he “bends the rules to fit his needs” and that he knew how to “get around the law.” I believe those to be very problematic statements for a CJ chair. Dean Throop wrote that she hoped "CJ Chair Caywood would take management training so the CJ department could run at a minimally acceptable level." Not a very high aspiration if you ask me.

CJ is the second largest program on campus and the department carries the Liberal Arts & Education College but only 10 % of the budget is given to the CJ department. We are highly understaffed, have only 1 full professor, 2 associate professors (the chair as a 100% administrator who just resigned), and 5 assistant professors (2 newly hired). The rest are staff members and adjuncts (several with just Bachelor degrees). We have almost 900 students in the undergraduate program and another 250 in the graduate program. At will adjuncts have been manipulated into positions of power by the administration at the costs of full time employees. This must change.

There has not been any pay raises in many years for teaching personnel, despite UWP being a teaching institution. Instructors have been laid off due to budget cuts while our administration has grown in number and power. Chancellor Shields has created several Assistant Chancellor positions and special assistants to himself and to the provost. Additionally, he gave himself and the provost a pay-raise. While UWP is the lowest paying campus in the UW system our Chancellor pays himself near the median Chancellor salary.

I have observed an increase of abuse of power, bullying, intimidation, misuse and misappropriation of funds, hiring violations, and cronyism and a decline in rights protection and morality on campus since Chancellor Shields took office.

Can a corrupt institution change without the corruption first being exposed? Can a corrupt institution change under the same leadership that is responsible for the systemic corruption? No, and I don’t think anyone in their right mind believes it can. My lawsuit will expose some of the problems on campus and force change. I could list the problems I know about but this would become a very long post. Chancellor Shields and Provost Throop must go. I believe we have a great new interim Dean in LAE who under new leadership will help us recover. Our CJ chair had a lot of promise. She failed because of Shields and Throop. Our department produces the bulk of the LAE budget yet only 10 % comes back to run a program of almost 900 undergraduate students. Our CJ curriculum is outdated. We don’t address cybercrime, terrorism or white collar crime. We have failed more searches than I can count on my fingers since I have joined the department. We don’t support undergraduate research. We don’t encourage fund raising within the department. Deals are made behind closed doors. We need transparency and accountability.

I have no intention of leaving. I would like to join my colleagues and new hires in addressing our current program shortcomings and develop a competitive curriculum. We need to guarantee academic rigor. I would like to work with various sponsors to develop a mandatory internship program for CJ and FI students. I would like to change our faculty hiring requirements and provide a JD faculty track. The ratio from faculty to academic staff should weigh heavier on the faculty side. Adjuncts should be used sparingly. I would like to create a modified teaching assistantship program for senior undergraduate students which would allow us 2000 level courses (where we usually don’t require papers and still do a fair amount of standardized testing) in larger classrooms. Introduction courses should be limited to 35 students. Directed (research) projects should be stronger integrated in our course offering. We should also offer courses with a heavy emphasis on critical thinking, problem solving and program evaluation. Our classroom settings should include round-table discussions and address new forms of communication and social networking. I would like us as department members to work closer with an advisory board made up of interested community members and former and current CJ practitioners. I have many ideas and I am excited about being part of the solution.

Grievance and appeals processes should be easily accessible and fair for both students and employees. With about 80% of the university budget being financed by student tuition our main focus should be the students, teaching, in-community learning, and undergraduate research and not the administration! I want greater faculty governance in accordance of WI state law. The chair in the CJ department should be accountable to the faculty and not the dean and rotated every 3 years to give more faculty experience in leadership and administrative tasks.

I would also like to develop an inter-departmental and inter-disciplinary ad hoc committee to further enrich the curriculum and provide a well-rounded education for our future CJ practitioners.

What I want from the lawsuit in terms of monetary reward: I certainly want to get my lawyer fees awarded and damages that I and my family have suffered. If the court finds punitive damages are warranted I would like to sponsor scholarships for CJ students. A main focus of the scholarship would be the fight against corruption.
Commenting is disabled for this post.

Post has attachment

Hit the jackpot of evidence. Not that my case needed to get any stronger. I just came into possession of evidence that my former attorney, who I am convinced now was bought by the other side, withheld from me and from the court. This paints a clear picture of deep corruption and conspiracy at UWP. According to those emails Fuller, Rice, Throop, Dalecki were heavily involved in making up charges against me to get me fired and rigging the national search for the CJ chair in 2014/15. No wonder I have received death threats in the past 2 years. When I reported the threats to UWP HR Director Janelle Crowley she forwarded them to Chancellor Shields. I was reprimanded and threatened with discipline by him. Wow!!! People will be held accountable. In the meantime I will watch my back even more than before. Heads will roll, heads will roll, just stay tuned for more info.

Yesterday we all received an email from administration saying that students, faculty and staff can take their complaints of sexual harassment and assault to "the Title IX Coordinator, Janelle Crowley, Chief Human Resources Officer"
Well, you make up your own mind about whether to trust our "Title IX Coordinator." I don't trust Crowley. I now only trust one person with assault, abuse reports that students bring to me: Our Dean of Students, Sheri Nevins.
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Update 11/4/2016: We had an emergency meeting this morning. No surprise that some department members teamed up against me. The vocal ones advocate for keeping discussions behind closed doors 'for the sake of the students.' Yes, all care about students but my impression was they care more about their own interests.

Kevin Norin, Dr. Caywood's brother-in-law, felt that it was fair to argue that I am just thinking of myself.

Dr. Fuller argued that it happened in 2012 and that I should just get over it, fully denying the ongoing retaliation and discrimination I have suffered since. Easy for her to say. She is the highest paid CJ member and is not threatened with termination like I am. See (short stories #3 and #4).

One of the most vocal department members was relatively new part time adjunct lecturer David Cooper, not a faculty member but he calls himself a faculty member. I respected him deeply but he has disappointed me greatly. Instrumental in arranging the recent conference that advocated "Trust and Legitimacy" David is quick to deny the sacrifice I have made in the past four years and quick to defend an administration that I believe to be deeply corrupt. What is Cooper's motivation for defending the administration against me? Why would he, as a former police officer, even imply that a victim of abuse just suck it up without even understanding the extent of the abuse? How often did he tell that to victims of sexual assault or other crimes?

Many dept. members disapproved of my posts on social media (Yay 1st Amendment!) but have no problem throwing dirt behind my back. Nobody seems to have a problem with Deb Rice's defamatory remarks against me. The Blue Wall of Silence runs deep in the CJ Department. Funny how we advocate things in class but can't live them in our own CJ department. I think students deserve to know about the dysfunction in our department so they can make informed decisions about their financial investments in their future.

I expected the hostility, in fact I am accustomed to being isolated in my department. I receive empathy, support, and friendship from outside of the CJ staff and faculty. Everyone in the meeting seems to want transparency, to make the students "feel" safe but not if it causes students to leave the school. An exodus of students could result in the most vulnerable employees losing their jobs and nobody wants that. But it is the students' right to know what they are in for. Corruption has never been cleaned up behind closed doors.

Photo below: Emergency hospital admission in 2014 followed by three endoscopic stomach surgeries, the last one in spring 2015. (Get over it? Just let it go? Really?)
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Please help me to get attention: I am an associate professor in Criminal Justice at university in Wisconsin. I believe and have ample evidence to prove that I have been the victim of severe retaliation after I assisted a student in reporting a sexual harassment claim against a fellow faculty member. Within months I turned from a model employee who was praised by the Chancellor for her service to students and the university to a problem employee that the administration tried to push into resigning. I pushed back, filing grievances and then a Title IX lawsuit. Now the Chancellor is planning to fire me on fake allegations. The administration has violated my due process rights for 4 years. Help me get due process and be able to continue to do the job I love to do.

Post has attachment
Well, here is my response to Chancellor Shields' 6/3/16 Letter of Direction:

It is a bit long but worth reading. I believe it shows very clearly the retaliatory character and unreasonableness of Shields' LOD. Following the LOD I filed a complaint with the OCR (Office for Civil Rights with the Department of Education). Not long after that Shields had a private investigator hand-deliver a complaint with threat of termination to me at my home. He couldn't even wait until I was back on contract in late August.
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
A new round of retaliation to intimidate me to speak up:


On June 3, 2016 Chancellor Shields issued a Letter of Direction against me. He did so in response to my 2 grievance requests from April 2016, one to address the Dean Throop's accusations against me in her Letter of Direction and the other to address Lecturer Deborah Rice's hostility against me. A grievance hearing is held before the faculty grievance committee that will review submitted evidence and oral arguments and then issue a report of findings to the Chancellor. The policy requires that a grievant will get a hearing within 21 days. The chancellor has 30 days after the grievance committee's report to issue a decision.

The grievance committee Mr. Dan Fairchild denied me a grievance hearing in both cases. I believe and have indication that he was told so by the administration. I brought this issue up with HR Director Janelle Crowley on May 9, 2016. She said in the meeting which I recorded (WI State Statute 961.31 allows one party consent recordings in most incidents) that she could pull Throop's Letter of Direction if she would get a "memo" from me and she agreed that I had a right to a grievance hearing against Deb Rice for her defamatory remarks against me. I also asked Director Crowley for help and advice as I have felt threatened by Dr. Dalecki. Over the past 2 years he has repeatedly made threatening remarks and gestures toward me.

Within a week Dr. Strobl took me off a $400,000 federal grant application. Dr. Strobl refused to communicate with me afterwards and didn't explain why she took me off against my will. Dr. Strobl replaced me, a tenure faculty member, with an adjunct lecturer on the grant application.

Below the Letter of Direction (if you would like to review the attachments to his letter please go to and search for Shields' LOD):
Add a comment...
Wait while more posts are being loaded