Case In Point
Arbitrator Upholds For-Cause Termination of Tenured University Professor for Sexual Harassment of Graduate Student
Date: July 22, 2025
In a significant decision for post-secondary institutions, Arbitrator Leslie Reaume has upheld the for-cause termination of a tenured university professor at Brock University for the sexual harassment of a graduate student.
The ruling sends a clear message that the power imbalance in supervisory relationships is not an invitation for inappropriate conduct. Sexually charged and personally intrusive comments are considered harassment and provide for valid and sufficient grounds to justify for-cause termination.
Background
The case involved a prominent tenured professor (Professor) who supervised graduate students. Over time, his supervisory relationship with a female graduate student (GS) became increasingly familiar and flirtatious. Initially, seemingly benign compliments about GS’ clothing evolved into more personal comments about her physical appearance and intrusive inquiries into her dating life. These comments, at first made in private, later occurred in the presence of others, causing GS increasing discomfort.
A turning point occurred during a multi-day conference in California, where the Professor’s comments about GS’ appearance and attire intensified. He also began physically touching GS’ lower back as he guided her through doorways or up escalators, a new and unwelcome behaviour.
Upon their return, GS addressed her concerns with the Professor during an in-person meeting. She explicitly stated her discomfort with the “male/female dynamic” in their relationship and requested a return to a more professional interaction, asking him to cease commenting on her appearance and inquiring about her personal life.
Arbitrator’s Analysis
Despite GS’ clear communication, the Arbitrator found that the Professor largely ignored her requests and continued his inappropriate conduct, which included further comments about her appearance, clothing, and personal relationships. In his testimony, the Professor denied much of the alleged conduct or claimed his actions were acceptable due to the “personal” nature of their relationship, likening GS to a family member.
Arbitrator Reaume rejected the Professor’s denials and explanations, finding his conduct to be “increasingly inappropriate” and “entirely unjustified,” especially after GS had explicitly asked him to stop. She characterized the Professor’s behaviour as a “pattern of reckless, sexualized comments that have no place in a supervisory relationship,” which included improper touching and objectification.
Specifically, the Arbitrator highlighted numerous instances of sexual harassment and gender discrimination, including:
- Calling GS “gorgeous” to a video producer assigned to create a promotional video for the University, implying her appearance was a factor in a professional opportunity.
- Persistent comments on GS’ appearance and attire during conferences, such as “you should wear your hair out more often,” which were deemed intimate and sexually suggestive.
- Comments on GS’ physical appearance and fitness, implying increased attractiveness, despite GS not initiating such discussions.
- Insinuating a colleague was “looking at” and “liked” GS, suggesting she “had an admirer”.
- Asking about the type of swimsuit GS purchased (“one-piece” or “bikini”) and persistently inviting her to swim at his hotel pool, which was seen as an interest in seeing her in a swimsuit.
- Comments that GS would have no difficulty finding a sperm donor, should she wish to start a family as a single parent.
- Asking if he needed to “check [her] for frostbite”, when she entered his lab on a cold day.
- Approaching GS in a pub, touching her dress, commenting “nice dress,” and later repeating the comment while remarking on the dress’ light weight and body-conscious style, despite being told to stop such behaviour.
- Confronting GS with a rumour that she was “banging” a male colleague.
In many earlier cases, examples of sexual harassment that led to a faculty member’s termination involved overt sexual touching, or the promising of academic rewards in exchange for sexual relations. The harassment in this case did not sink to such levels. It consisted of intermittent flirtatious and intrusive comments and the physical touching of the student’s back and shoulders over the course of several years.
The Arbitrator found that where conduct of this nature persists over a protracted period, especially after a graduate student has expressed their personal discomfort, it gives rise to a poisoned learning environment and a need to impose discipline.
Decision on Discipline
Arbitrator Reaume found that the Professor’s refusal to accept responsibility for his misconduct, coupled with a prior disciplinary record for harassment of another female employee, indicated a lack of understanding and remorse. This led the Arbitrator to conclude that the termination of the Professor’s employment was an appropriate disciplinary response, as the University had lost trust in his ability to provide a harassment-free environment to his colleagues and students. The Professor’s admitted breach of confidentiality related to his prior discipline was also considered an aggravating factor.
Key Takeaways
Document Patterns and Respond Decisively
This case demonstrates that universities can successfully terminate tenured employees for inappropriate comments and unwelcome touching that create a poisoned learning environment, without needing to establish the most egregious forms of sexual harassment.
Prior Discipline Creates Compelling Precedent
Universities should maintain comprehensive disciplinary records and consider progressive discipline when determining appropriate sanctions for subsequent misconduct.
Denial and Lack of Accountability Are Aggravating Factors
The Professor’s refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing and attempts to minimize his conduct supported the severe penalty. Institutions should document not only the original misconduct but also the employee’s response during investigations, as lack of remorse can justify harsher discipline.
Brock University was successfully represented by Hicks Morley’s Jonathan Maier.
The article in this client update provides general information and should not be relied on as legal advice or opinion. This publication is copyrighted by Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP and may not be photocopied or reproduced in any form, in whole or in part, without the express permission of Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP. ©