Final_Report

Investigation Summary of Sexual Harassment Complaint

Background

  • Complaint Parties:

    • Zoe McCall (Complaining Party): TTU undergraduate student, Military Science IV cadet.

    • Major Nicholas Baker (Responding Party): ROTC Instructor, employed by U.S. Army.

  • Incident Date: September 7, 2024, during an ROTC field training exercise (FTX) in Post, Texas.

  • Initial Report: Made by Military Science Instructor Paul Livermore to TTU Office of Student Civil Rights.

    • Allegations included inappropriate sexual comments by Responding Party towards Complaining Party.

Investigation Process

  • Filing of Complaint: Zoe McCall filed a formal complaint on September 22, 2024.

  • Interim Measures: No contact order instituted; Responding Party's duties limited to administrative tasks.

  • Interviews Conducted: Nine individuals including both parties and cadets.

Alleged Comments by Responding Party

  • Compliments on Complaining Party's smile.

  • Inquiries related to her tattoos, termed "sexy".

  • Comments suggesting sexual favors would influence rank and relationships in the Army.

  • Suggested she had to "rank up" if she engaged with others in the Army, implying power dynamics.

  • Flirtatious remarks about her age and sexual experiences.

Witness Accounts

Student 1

  • Confirmed Complaining Party reported inappropriate remarks after the FTX.

  • Warned Complaining Party to avoid Responding Party.

Student 2

  • Observed changes in Responding Party's demeanor, suspected him of alcohol consumption during training.

Student 3

  • Noted Responding Party's behavior was overly friendly; did not see any direct inappropriate comments.

Findings

  • Nature of Comments: While Complaining Party felt uncomfortable and believed comments were sexual in nature, they were not found to be severe enough to constitute violations of TTUS Regulation 07.06B.

  • Recommendations: Behavior to be addressed by supervisors; inappropriate discussions around alcohol and personal matters to be curbed.

Conclusion

  • Outcome: No violation found under university policy; however, the Responding Party's behavior was deemed highly unprofessional.

  • Recommendation for Future Conduct: Improved training and compliance regarding professional conduct in the ROTC environment.