Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
1. Vamsidhar Vurimindi
1782 Frankford Ave, Unit 1, Philadelphia, PA 19125
Plaintiff,
Vs.
1. Barns Barton
6219 Lymbar Dr. H...
Page - 2 - of 125
COMPLAINT
(I) JURISDICTION:
Diversity of Citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332
(II) THE PARTIES:
A. PLAINTIFF:
0...
Page - 3 - of 125
14. In response, Duke’ Assistant Director for Admissions made a specific promise to Plaintiff that
Duke ...
Page - 4 - of 125
24. In March 2008, Duke commenced WEMBA class of 2009 program with one (1) week
orientation session.
25....
Page - 5 - of 125
30. Plaintiff believes that Defendant Moira Ringo resorted to psychological manipulation to gain
power a...
Page - 6 - of 125
35. Defendants smear campaign was so intense, powerful, persuasory, actuating, convincing,
and provocati...
Page - 7 - of 125
predetermined to prove that Defendants claim that, Plaintiff came to Duke, by indulging
through academic...
Page - 8 - of 125
wife’ company?”. Then Plaintiff told to John Dohnal that, “her company is a private company
and the info...
Page - 9 - of 125
55. On 11th April 2008, during morning breakfast at R. David Thomas Center, Plaintiff, Aparna
Batra and ...
Page - 10 - of 125
63. Immediately, Sarah Rosen Shah responded back to Plaintiff that, “it seems that they came
know that ...
Page - 11 - of 125
came to Duke, by indulging through academic dishonesty and not by his intelligence, they
are ranking Pl...
Page - 12 - of 125
77. In addition, by this time in May 2008, Duke failed to enforce anti-harassment policies.
78. While, ...
Page - 13 - of 125
time, Plaintiff asked Defendant Moira Ringo, “What do you mean?” At that time, Defendant
Moira Ringo re...
Page - 14 - of 125
94. In 2nd Week of June 2008, Duke announced WEMBA student’s partners’ weekend program
and Plaintiff in...
Page - 15 - of 125
103. In July 2008, Duke conducted an on campus recruitment event. Plaintiff along with his
classmates a...
Page - 16 - of 125
Plaintiff in the minds of Rick Weiss and Suhash Bhavsar, and with that preconceived notions,
Rick Weiss...
Page - 17 - of 125
117. After, Plaintiff challenged Professor Jill Stowe’ blatant errors and due to subsequent changes
to ...
Page - 18 - of 125
Plaintiff from being visible to professors, because as per Duke’ policy being active in the on-
line in...
Page - 19 - of 125
cleverly denied12
by saying that he never said don’t post any discussions, but said spare him
and other...
Page - 20 - of 125
133. While, Plaintiff took extraordinary measure to avoid Defendant Brooke Balcom, sometime in
October ...
Page - 21 - of 125
143. Despite, Plaintiff raised his objections to use the software applications that aren’t authorized
b...
Page - 22 - of 125
149. As soon as Plaintiff made it clear that he will do whatever is necessary to protect his dignity
an...
Page - 23 - of 125
‘Audemars Piguet’ and sarcastically asking Plaintiff to wear those watches and come to
shooting range.
...
Page - 24 - of 125
Valentine as, “what made you to talk like that?”. Then Gregory Valentine told to Plaintiff
that, “I kne...
Page - 25 - of 125
that “you have plagiarized during your undergraduate program and probably you plagiarize
now”; in respo...
Page - 26 - of 125
Pratibhash Chattopadhyay made a depreciatory verbal remark attributing to Plaintiff, that
“he is low se...
Page - 27 - of 125
confrontation21
; and dramatized Defendant Brooke Balcom’ reactions to Plaintiff’ casual
enquiry.
181. ...
Page - 28 - of 125
184. It is evident that Defendant Daniel Paschke attempted to manipulate John Gallagher and
Alaina Filk...
Page - 29 - of 125
191. In addition, on 11th January 2009, Defendant Daniel Paschke wrote an email24
to other Class
repres...
Page - 30 - of 125
194. On 12th January 2009, when John Gallagher called Defendant Brooke Balcom, she lied,
exaggerated an...
Page - 31 - of 125
200. Simultaneously, Defendants Robert Ross, Robert Ball and Shana Keating intensified their
malign and...
Page - 32 - of 125
207. John Gallagher questioned Plaintiff about the alleged ‘verbal assault’ against Defendant
Brooke Ba...
Page - 33 - of 125
abusive conduct against Plaintiff and give a free hand to defendants to continue the same
abusive condu...
Page - 34 - of 125
215. After Katherine Amato filed a police complaint against Plaintiff, on 19th January 2009,
Katherine ...
Page - 35 - of 125
217. As soon, Katherine Amato called Defendant Peter Walton to gather more information about
Plaintiff ...
Page - 36 - of 125
222. Plaintiff believes that Katherine Amato waited till the time that Duke Administration that
Plainti...
Page - 37 - of 125
that they like to use and how recently that they fired the guns; and could potentially pose
more risk t...
Page - 38 - of 125
233. On 22nd February 2009, Plaintiff contacted Mark Brown via email39
and copied his email to
Defendan...
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business

3,142

Published on

Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business

Published in: Education, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
3,142
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Federal Complaint - Fuqua School of Business"

  1. 1. 1. Vamsidhar Vurimindi 1782 Frankford Ave, Unit 1, Philadelphia, PA 19125 Plaintiff, Vs. 1. Barns Barton 6219 Lymbar Dr. Houston, TX 77096, USA 2. Robert Ball 3227 Harris Mill LN, Charlotte, NC 28262 3. Nathaniel Hawkins 5123 White Horse Dr. Greensboro, NC 4. Robert Ross 117 Homegate Circle, Apex, NC 27502 5. Peter Walton 1299 Sandy Bottom Drive, NW Concord, NC 28027 6. Dan Paschke 4420 Overglen Ave, Wake Forest, NC 27587, USA 7. Brooke Balcom 3355 Greenfield Lane, Cincinnati, OH 4524 8. Moira Ringo 7730 Cape Charles Dr, Raleigh, NC 27617 9. Shana Keating 3028 Sawyers Mill Drive, Apex, NC 27539 10. Anna Gonowon 101 Glenlake Commons, Decatur, GA 30030 Defendants ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina Complaint for Libel Complaint for Slander Complaint for Civil Conspiracy Complaint for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Complaint for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Case 1:12-cv-01223 Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 1 of 125
  2. 2. Page - 2 - of 125 COMPLAINT (I) JURISDICTION: Diversity of Citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (II) THE PARTIES: A. PLAINTIFF: 01. Plaintiff Vamsidhar Vurimindi is a resident of 1782 Frankford Ave, Unit # 1, Philadelphia, PA 19125. Hereafter Plaintiff Vamsidhar Vurimindi referred as Plaintiff. B. DEFENDANTS: 02. Defendant Barnes Barton, is a resident of 6219 Lymbar Dr. Houston, TX 77096, USA 03. Defendant Robert Ball, is a resident of 3227 Harris Mill LN, Charlotte, NC 28262 04. Defendant Nathaniel Hawkins, is a resident of 5123 White Horse Dr. Greensboro, NC 27410 USA 05. Defendant Robert Ross is a resident of 117 Homegate Circle, Apex, NC 27502. 06. Defendant Peter Walton is a resident of 1299 Sandy Bottom Drive, NW Concord, NC 28027. 07. Defendant Dan Paschke, 4420 Overglen Ave, Wake Forest, NC 27587, USA 08. Defendant Brooke Balcom, is a resident of 3355 Greenfield Lane, Cincinnati, OH 45245, USA 09. Defendant Moira Ringo is a resident of 7730 Cape Charles Dr, Raleigh, NC 27617. 10. Defendant Shana Keating is a resident of 3028 Sawyers Mill Drive, Apex, NC 27539. 11. Defendant Anna Gonowon is a resident of 101 Glenlake Commons, Decatur, GA 30030 (III) STATEMENT OF CLAIM: 12. In February 2008, prior to applying for an admission into Weekend Executive MBA program (“WEMBA”), Plaintiff had a meeting with Duke’ Assistant Director for Admissions in Duke Campus. 13. At that time, Plaintiff bargained for business writing and real estate finance courses; and assist Plaintiff to prepare a detailed business plan to develop vacant lots owned by City of Philadelphia, which are scattered in the city. Case 1:12-cv-01223 Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 2 of 125
  3. 3. Page - 3 - of 125 14. In response, Duke’ Assistant Director for Admissions made a specific promise to Plaintiff that Duke will offer business writing and real estate finance courses; and assist Plaintiff to prepare a detailed business plan to develop vacant lots owned by City of Philadelphia, through its Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation (CEI) or Center for the Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship (CASE). 15. After, Duke’ Assistant Director for Admissions made specific promises, Plaintiff without ambiguity paraphrased those specific promises in writing as to why Plaintiff wanted to earn an MBA and what curriculum Plaintiff is expecting that Duke must offer and submitted along with his admission application. 16. After that, a high level Duke’ Admissions committee reviewed Plaintiff’ application along with Plaintiff’ written statements and accepted Plaintiff’ application and immediately thereafter, Plaintiff paid the tuition fee. 17. Duke offered WEMBA course over a span of 19 months between March 2008 and November 2009, in six terms. 18. Plaintiff deliberately chooses a WEMBA program over online format is to have one-on-one in-person direct contact with the student body, because face-to-face meetings are essential to cultivate new relationships in many business interactions. 19. Plaintiff self financed WEMBA program cost paid all expenses on his own, but not limited to the school tuition fee, travel expenses and time to attend the classes. 20. WEMBA program started with one (1) week on-campus orientation program and subsequent classes are held on alternating weekends on Fridays and Saturdays. 21. Duke provided accommodation on Friday nights and at an extra cost Duke provided accommodation on Thursday nights. 22. Plaintiff stayed at the R. David Thomas Center on Thursday and Friday nights, where Duke provided accommodation to WEMBA students. 23. In between the weekend classes, to continue the collaborative interaction between the students and professors, Duke provided software application l called “CentraOne”, having capabilities for live interaction with professors and other students. Many WEMBA students extensively used CentraOne to interact with other students as well as with Professors. Case 1:12-cv-01223 Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 3 of 125
  4. 4. Page - 4 - of 125 24. In March 2008, Duke commenced WEMBA class of 2009 program with one (1) week orientation session. 25. In March 2008, on the 1st day of the orientation session, Defendant Moira Ringo told to many of the Plaintiff’ classmates that, Plaintiff lacks academic integrity and had a history of academic dishonesty; and indulged in adultery. 26. In March 2008, on the 2nd day of the orientation session during a breakfast at R. David Thomas Center, Defendant Moira Ringo gathered Plaintiff’ classmates Jason Link and David Mitchell around Plaintiff and Defendant Moira Ringo prodded Jason Link to start a pre- meditated conversation in a mocking fashion. At that time, Jason Link looking towards Plaintiff and said that, “it appears that cheaters are in the class”. At that time, immediately Plaintiff asked Jason Link, “What do you mean by that?” At that time Jason Link response was dismissive. 27. Nevertheless, Plaintiff attempted to pursue Jason Link for an explanation, but at that time, Duke Administrators rushed Plaintiff and other WEMBA students to get into a bus to go to Triangle Training Center for team building exercises, which are part of the orientation session and Plaintiff, Defendant Moira Ringo and Jason Link departed. 28. Plaintiff and David Mitchell happen to belongs to a team, Plaintiff stayed with David Mitchell and get into the bus. For the first few minutes of the bus travel, Plaintiff and David Mitchell had decent conversation and after that, suddenly David Mitchell suggested to Plaintiff to read a book about, “how to lie without getting caught by the lie detector”. Immediately, Plaintiff asked David Mitchell, “Why do you think that I should read that book?” In response, David Mitchell told to Plaintiff, that “it may be helpful for you to continue in the program”. At that time, Plaintiff asked David Mitchell, “Why do you think that I am lying?” At that time, David Mitchell response was vague and dismissive. 29. Jason Link and David Mitchell both in their responses were evasive and vague to Plaintiff and this lead Plaintiff to confusion over the matter at hand, as well as made the Plaintiff disinclined to pursue further conversations on the topic with Defendant Moira Ringo and as well as with both Jason Link and David Mitchell. Case 1:12-cv-01223 Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 4 of 125
  5. 5. Page - 5 - of 125 30. Plaintiff believes that Defendant Moira Ringo resorted to psychological manipulation to gain power and control over Plaintiff, by throwing Plaintiff on the defensive by using subtle, indirect, or implied threats. 31. Because, Defendant Moira Ringo’ false accusations attributing to Plaintiff are almost impossible to be seen as aggressive on the surface, and visibly at the unconscious level, Plaintiff is confused over the matter at hand, Jason Link and David Mitchell both believed Defendant Moira Ringo’ false accusations attributing to Plaintiff, and further blamed, condemned, defamed, denigrated, denounced, disparaged, humiliated, maligned, pilloried, sullied, tarnished Plaintiff’ reputation among the Plaintiff’ classmates by attributing Plaintiff lacks academic integrity and had a history of academic dishonesty; and indulged in adultery. 32. Defendants1 along with other Plaintiff’ classmates2 haunted and jog the Plaintiff’ memory about Defendant Moira Ringo’ statements about Plaintiff’ lacking academic integrity and had a history of academic dishonesty; and indulged in adultery and covertly and overtly made several preparatory acts to compel Duke to expel Plaintiff throughout the WEMBA program by schemingly using Duke’ professors, Duke’ policies and procedures. 33. Within a week, by the end of the orientation session, along with other Defendants and Plaintiff’ classmates, Defendant Moira Ringo organized a smear campaign against Plaintiff by propagating Plaintiff’ lacking academic integrity and had a history of academic dishonesty; and indulged in adultery and not as a person was properly grounded with a decent set of values and turned Duke Campus into a hostile environment to Plaintiff. 34. Defendant Moira Ringo along with other Plaintiff’ classmates told to Professor Jill Stowe that Plaintiff’ lacking academic integrity and had a history of academic dishonesty; and indulged in adultery. 1 Barnes Barton, Robert Ball, Nathaniel Hawkins, Robert Ross, Peter Walton, Dan Paschke, Brooke Balcom, Moira Ringo and Shana Keating. 2 Jason Link, Kristofer Singleton, David Mitchell, Douglas Bashar, Johnny Williams, John Dohnal, Alissandro Castillo, Sudheer Dharanikota, Sunil Balasaheb Patil, Amit Khare, Eugene White, Rajiv Prasad Kolagani, Pratibhash Chattopadhyay, Jennifer Erickson, Seth Gillespie, Gregory Valentine, Pradeep Rajagopal, Rajiv Patnaik, Lei Zhu, John Espey, Sanjay Mishra, Sankar Ramesh, Kevin Giusti, and Sreedhar Manjigani Case 1:12-cv-01223 Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 5 of 125
  6. 6. Page - 6 - of 125 35. Defendants smear campaign was so intense, powerful, persuasory, actuating, convincing, and provocative enough to sway the learned professors felt that Plaintiff’ lacking academic integrity and had a history of academic dishonesty; and indulged in adultery, so Plaintiff shouldn’t be allowed to continue in the WEMBA program. 36. Plaintiff was agitated and discomposed with the Defendants intense smear campaign against Plaintiff, on 13th March 2008, at 8:00 AM attended his first class at Duke. 37. Fortunately or unfortunately, Professor Jill Stowe’ Probability and Statistics course is the first class. 38. As soon as class started Professor Jill Stowe told to the class that she is using a randomization tool to pick a student and ask a question from the class reading material. 39. Immediately Professor Jill Stowe called on Plaintiff and asked a question from the class reading material and Plaintiff answered her question. Nevertheless, Professor Jill Stowe was predetermined to prove that Defendants claim that, Plaintiff came to Duke, by indulging through academic dishonesty and not by his intelligence and continue to ask ancillary questions from outside of the class reading material to a point where, Plaintiff could not answer her question. 40. At a point in time, when Plaintiff could not answer Professor Jill Stowe’ question from outside of the class reading material, Plaintiff’ classmates Jason Link, Rajiv Prasad Kolagani, David Mitchell, Sunil Balasaheb, and Sanjay Mishra conveyed to other students with their facial and hand gestures, “see we told you”, implying that Plaintiff came to Duke, by indulging through academic dishonesty and not by his intelligence. 41. Surprisingly, next day on 14th March 2008, Professor Jill Stowe told to the class that her randomizing tool is not working; hence she will call the students directly. 42. Plaintiff believe that Professor Jill Stowe told to the class that she is using a randomization tool to pick the students, but in reality there is no true functioning randomization tool at her disposal to select the students. 43. In fact and indeed, Professor Jill Stowe used the name of the randomization tool as a smoke screen to purposefully pick Plaintiff as soon first class was started, because she is Case 1:12-cv-01223 Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 6 of 125
  7. 7. Page - 7 - of 125 predetermined to prove that Defendants claim that, Plaintiff came to Duke, by indulging through academic dishonesty and not by his intelligence. 44. On 14th March 2008, while Plaintiff is sitting in the Managerial Effectiveness class, Plaintiff classmate Rajiv Patnaik leaned towards Plaintiff and said that, “they came to know about you”. At that time, Plaintiff asked Rajiv Patnaik we can talk about this during class break. Right after that, during class break Plaintiff asked Rajiv Patnaik, “What are you saying during the class?” At that time, Rajiv Patnaik’ response was dismissive and abruptly ended his conversation with Plaintiff. 45. On 29th March 2008, sometime during afternoon class session break, Plaintiff classmate Rajiv Prasad Kolagani approached Plaintiff and said that, “they came to know about you”. In response, Plaintiff told to Rajiv Prasad Kolagani that, “during the last class session, Rajiv Patnaik also told to me the same thing and when asked to explain, he abruptly ended the conversation and can you please explain me?”. At that time, Rajiv Prasad Kolagani response was dismissive and ended the conversation with the Plaintiff abruptly. 46. Plaintiff believes that Defendant Moira Ringo’ false accusations attributing to Plaintiff lead Rajiv Patnaik and Rajiv Prasad Kolagani to further vilify Plaintiff, by putting Plaintiff on the defensive while masking their aggressive intention of gain power and control over Plaintiff through subtle, indirect and implied threats. 47. On 10th April 2008, Plaintiff’ classmates Tina Hong, Sanjay Mishra, Sreeedhar Manjigani3 , John Dohnal and Seth Gillespie invited Plaintiff to join then for casual conversations. At that time, John Dohnal enquired Plaintiff’ marital status and Plaintiff told to John Dohnal that he is married. 48. Then, immediately John Dohnal asked, “What is your wife do for living?” In response Plaintiff told to John Dohnal that, “My wife is a COO of a fast growing life sciences company in Philadelphia region”. Then, John Dohnal asked, “what is the annual sales volume of your 3 Sridhar Manjigani and Plaintiff belongs to same hometown back home in India; Sridhar Manjigani’ father is an acquaintance to Plaintiff’ father. Plaintiff and Sridhar Manjigani didn’t attend together the same school or college back home in India. Case 1:12-cv-01223 Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 7 of 125
  8. 8. Page - 8 - of 125 wife’ company?”. Then Plaintiff told to John Dohnal that, “her company is a private company and the information about the company is revealed only on a need to know basis. If you have any business proposal, I am happy to give my wife’ contact information, so that you can find directly from her”. 49. Immediately, John Dohnal and Sanjay Mishra asked Plaintiff, “What is that you really do for living?”. In response, Plaintiff told, “I am working as a consultant at Wyeth Pharmaceuticals and started a real estate development company and am pursuing few construction projects in Philadelphia”. 50. Immediately, John Dohnal asked Plaintiff, “What do you do at Wyeth”. Then Plaintiff explained his nature of work. At that time, John Dohnal in a mocking fashion way asked Plaintiff about his ongoing issue with Accenture and Wyeth employees at his work. 51. Plaintiff paused 15 seconds of silence to understand the mockery about Plaintiff’ work situation at Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, and while Plaintiff was pausing, Seth Gillespie told to Tina Hong, Sanjay Mishra, Sridhar Manjigani and John Dohnal that “he is having rough time at Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, and he has been demoted, because he is messing with Accenture”. 52. Immediately, Plaintiff responded to Seth Gillespie that, “I am not messing with Accenture at Wyeth, but it is true that my initial contract has been cancelled and that contract has been awarded to Accenture”. At that time, Seth Gillespie accused Plaintiff that “he is lying and that is why his lips are trembling”. 53. Then, Plaintiff realized that Tina Hong, Sanjay Mishra, Sridhar Manjigani, John Dohnal and Seth Gillespie are somehow in direct contact with Plaintiff’ managers at Wyeth Pharmaceuticals. 54. Plaintiff realized that Defendant Moira Ringo’ statements about Plaintiff lacking academic integrity and having history of academic dishonesty; and alleged adultery along with Plaintiff’ managers intimidation, Defendants and Plaintiffs’ classmates are doubting Plaintiff’ academic integrity and marital honesty and not knowing as to how educate Tina Hong, Sanjay Mishra, Sridhar Manjigani, John Dohnal and Seth Gillespie, Plaintiff left them and went back to his room. Case 1:12-cv-01223 Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 8 of 125
  9. 9. Page - 9 - of 125 55. On 11th April 2008, during morning breakfast at R. David Thomas Center, Plaintiff, Aparna Batra and Sreedhar Manjigani are taking breakfast at one table. At that time, while Sreedhar Manjigani prodding Aparna Batra with facial suggestions, Aparna Batra told to Sreedhar Manjigani that , “Vamsidhar eyes are telling the story that he is guilty”. 56. At that time, Plaintiff asked Sreedhar Manjigani, “what did you tell her and what is she talking?” Right after that, Sreedhar Manjigani quickly left the table and when Plaintiff attempted to ask the same question, Sreedhar Manjigani’ answer was vague, abrupt and dismissive. 57. On 11th April 2008, sometime after the afternoon class session, while Plaintiff is walking back to his room, Tina Hong, Sanjay Mishra, and Sreedhar Manjigani called Plaintiff to join them for a conversation and Plaintiff reluctantly joined them. 58. At that time, Sanjay Mishra asked Plaintiff to tell about Plaintiff’ family history and Plaintiff’ work before migrating to United States. At that time, Plaintiff felt uncomfortable and attempted to divert the conversation. Nevertheless, Sanjay Mishra insisted to respond to his question. At that time, Plaintiff was annoyed by Sanjay Mishra’ persistence and told them Plaintiff don’t want to talk about that issue. 59. At that time, Sanjay Mishra looked at Plaintiff and said that that “why are you getting uneasy, it seems that you are trying to hide something”. At that time, Plaintiff left the group and went back to his room. 60. Plaintiff believe that Defendant Moira Ringo’ statements about Plaintiff lacking academic integrity and having history of academic dishonesty; and alleged adultery lead the Plaintiff’ classmates to enquire into Plaintiff’ private life. 61. On 11th April 2008, in the evening Duke organized a networking opportunity with Global Executive MBA students and Plaintiff participated in this event. At that time, Sarah Rosen Shah, Duke’ Weekend Executive MBA Admissions Counselor also present in that event. 62. On 11th April 2008, while Plaintiff standing along with several other classmates, Sarah Rosen Shah approached Plaintiff and asked Plaintiff as “how the things are at Wharton and what happened to your admission at Wharton”. Then Plaintiff replied as “Wharton denied the admission”. Case 1:12-cv-01223 Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 9 of 125
  10. 10. Page - 10 - of 125 63. Immediately, Sarah Rosen Shah responded back to Plaintiff that, “it seems that they came know that you don’t have what you claim that you have”. Then Plaintiff asked Sarah Rosen Shah as “what do you mean by that?” However, Sarah Rosen Shah response was vague and abrupt. 64. Plaintiff believe that Defendant Moira Ringo’ statements about Plaintiff lacking academic integrity and having history of academic dishonesty; and alleged adultery lead Sarah Rosen Shah to doubtful about Plaintiff’ integrity and that doubt leads Sarah Rosen Shah to imaginary speculation. 65. After that, Sarah Rosen Shah made hand and facial gestures to Plaintiff’ classmates, while several attendees are watching them by conveying a meaning that not to talk to Plaintiff, and as result Plaintiff couldn’t able to network with the participants. 66. On 11th April 2008, evening after dinner, Tina Hong gathered Sanjay Mishra, Sreedhar Manjigani, Sankar Ramesh, Pratibhash Chattopadhyay and Eugene White at the Bar at R. David Thomas Center. 67. While Plaintiff having dinner at R. David Thomas Center, Pratibhash Chattopadhyay approached Plaintiff and asked “What are you doing after dinner?” Plaintiff responded to him that “due to the course work load, I didn’t have time respond to my general contractor questions, so, I want to respond to his questions tonight”. At that time, Pratibhash Chattopadhyay suggested the Plaintiff, just come to the bar for few minutes to meet other classmates. 68. After his dinner, Plaintiff went to the bar at R. David Thomas Center and as soon, Plaintiff go to the bar, Sanjay Mishra asked other students to stand in front of the Plaintiff. As soon, Plaintiff classmates stand in front of Plaintiff, Sanjay Mishra said to the Plaintiff, “you are standing in the line behind us and you will be waiting in the line behind us”. At that time, Plaintiff asked Sanjay Mishra, “What is this all about?” At that time, Sanjay Mishra, responded to the Plaintiff that, “don’t you understand? You are supposed to be the last person in the queue”. 69. Plaintiff believe that Defendant Moira Ringo’ statements about Plaintiff lacking academic integrity and having history of academic dishonesty lead his classmates believe that Plaintiff Case 1:12-cv-01223 Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 10 of 125
  11. 11. Page - 11 - of 125 came to Duke, by indulging through academic dishonesty and not by his intelligence, they are ranking Plaintiff with lowest possible rank. 70. Immediately, next day, on 12th April 2008, Plaintiff contacted Duke Administration and explained the harassment that he is subjected by his classmates and demanded to enforce Duke’ anti-harassment policies, before the defendants permanently and irrevocably damage Plaintiff’ image and reputation in the student community. 71. After few days, Duke Administration without enforcing Duke’ anti-harassment policies to restrain students from harassing Plaintiff, simply recommended some books4 to read as to how to deal with burden of being an object of ridicule and harassment. 72. While, defendants continue to damage Plaintiff’ image and reputation in the student community, as per Duke specific promise, Plaintiff enquired Duke for Business Writing courses; In response, Duke Administration told to Plaintiff, that Duke don’t offer Business Writing Course for WEMBA students and suggested to read some books from Duke library. 73. At the same time, as per Duke’ specific promise, Plaintiff asked Duke Administration and Duke’ CEI and CASE to assist Plaintiff in the preparation of business plan to develop vacant lots owned by City of Philadelphia. 74. None from Duke’ CEI and CASE respond to Plaintiff and in April 2008 Duke Administration told to Plaintiff that Duke will offer some assistance if Plaintiff enrolled into entrepreneurial courses in the Term 5 and 6. 75. Nevertheless, in May 2008, Duke Administration categorically told to Plaintiff that they don’t offer any assistance to Plaintiff to prepare a business plan to develop vacant lots owned by City of Philadelphia and suggested to hire a real estate attorney. 76. By this time in May 2008, Duke breached its two promises that it made to Plaintiff (1) offering Business Writing Course (2) assist Plaintiff in the preparation of business plan to develop vacant lots owned by City of Philadelphia. 4 Vamsi, I enjoyed our talk yesterday. There are some things we can discuss about the soft skill issues. I recommend that you look carefully at the MET! and TKI feedback, and we can also discuss the Difficult Conversations resources I alluded to yesterday. It would be interesting to see how your culture active results also shed light on some of the issues we discussed, since I believe the cultural background you came from may have influenced you greatly in your current style of communication. Case 1:12-cv-01223 Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 11 of 125
  12. 12. Page - 12 - of 125 77. In addition, by this time in May 2008, Duke failed to enforce anti-harassment policies. 78. While, Plaintiff struggling to understand as to why his classmates organized a smear campaign against Plaintiff, Professor Jill Stowe, between, May 2008 and June 2008 conducted three short exams. 79. Professor Jill Stowe, purposefully and continually targeted Plaintiff by incorrectly evaluating Plaintiff’ exam answers and prominently placed Plaintiff’ score cards to the public eye, in violation to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99). 80. Plaintiff believes that Jill Stowe prominently placed Plaintiff’ score cards to the public eye to lower Plaintiff’ image among his classmates, because Plaintiff didn’t get high scores and the general perception that exam scores are proxy to estimate one’ intelligence. 81. Plaintiff was confused, distracted and under severe mental distress due to the ongoing harassment by his classmates, Plaintiff couldn’t able to contact Professor Jill Stowe to ask to reevaluate Plaintiff answers. 82. By the end of the Term-1, Defendants and Professor Jill Stowe created an impression among the WEMBA students that Plaintiff will be detained and will not be promoted to Term-2 and accordingly, Plaintiff’ classmates directly accused Plaintiff in front of Professor Jill Stowe. 83. In June 2008, on the last minute of the final exam of Professor Jill Stowe’ Probability and Statistics course, when Plaintiff is handing his answer sheet to Professor Jill Stowe, at the instigation of Pratibhash Chattopadhyay, Jennifer Erickson told to Professor Jill Stowe attributing to Plaintiff as “he is a criminal”. 84. At that time, immediately, Plaintiff asked Pratibhash Chattopadhyay and Jennifer Erickson, “Why would you call me a criminal”. At that time, Pratibhash Chattopadhyay and Jennifer Erickson didn’t respond to Plaintiff, and Professor Jill Stowe was mere spectator during that episode. 85. In June 2008, after final exam of Professor Jill Stowe’ Probability and Statistics course, when Plaintiff leaving the Duke’ Campus to airport, Defendant Moira Ringo purposefully approached Plaintiff and told to Plaintiff “this is the last trip for you to Durham, NC”. At that Case 1:12-cv-01223 Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 12 of 125
  13. 13. Page - 13 - of 125 time, Plaintiff asked Defendant Moira Ringo, “What do you mean?” At that time, Defendant Moira Ringo response was vague, abrupt, and dismissive. 86. Later, it turn out that Professor Jill Stowe awarded a failing grade to Plaintiff, despite there is no Duke policy is required or expected to fail a student. 87. It is evident that, Professor Jill Stowe revealed Plaintiff’ failing grade to Plaintiff’ classmates, prior to evaluating Plaintiff’ final exam answers and prior to informing Plaintiff about his own grades is in violation to Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99). 88. After, Plaintiff was informed by Duke Administration, that Professor Jill Stowe awarded a failing grade and that would detain Plaintiff to progress into Term-2, Plaintiff compared his all three short exam answer sheets; and his final exam answers with the Professor Jill Stowe’ answer keys and found that Professor Jill Stowe made blatant errors in evaluating Plaintiff’ answers. 89. As soon, Plaintiff observe the blatant errors in evaluating Plaintiff’ answers and subsequent award of a failing grade, Plaintiff challenged his grade, because Plaintiff believe that Professor Jill Stowe unfairly evaluated Plaintiff’ performance. 90. In his appeal, Plaintiff demanded Duke to review all WEMBA students answer sheets, whether Professor Jill Stowe used the same ‘yard stick’ to evaluate Plaintiff’ answer sheets. 91. Professor Jill Stowe without getting into reviewing WEMBA students answer sheets, and Plaintiff’ answer sheets, Professor Jill Stowe adjusted Plaintiff’ grade from fail to low pass. 92. Plaintiff believes that Duke and Professor Jill Stowe pre-empt a detailed enquiry into the review of WEMBA students answer sheets, by adjusting Plaintiff’ grade from fail to low pass to hide the fact that Professor Jill Stowe targeting Plaintiff by awarding a failing grade. 93. In fact and indeed Duke and Professor Jill Stowe foreclosed an enquiry into the review of all WEMBA students answer sheets and this is confirmed by the email5 communication between Duke Administrators Mark Miller and Dean Gallagher. 5 Regarding grade appeal, in an email that Mark Miller wrote to Dean Gallagher, that, “Good point. I think what he is looking for is ammunition to say that Jill did something inappropriate. My belief is that if we tell him that Jill chose to fail him but was in no way required or expected to do so, that will reinforce his believe that Jill is unfairly singling him out for a bad grade”. Case 1:12-cv-01223 Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 13 of 125
  14. 14. Page - 14 - of 125 94. In 2nd Week of June 2008, Duke announced WEMBA student’s partners’ weekend program and Plaintiff informed Duke Administration that his wife will attend WEMBA students partners’ weekend. 95. As soon Plaintiff informed Duke Administration that his wife will attend WEMBA students partners’ weekend, Sanjay Mishra and Sreedhar Manjigani along with Tina Hong approached Plaintiff and asked “is that really your wife you are bringing to the partners weekend?” 96. Plaintiff was humiliated and embraced and don’t know how to respond to the vulgar, indecent, obscene, lewd and offensive question and left them. 97. Plaintiff believe that, Plaintiff’ classmates asked this vulgar and offensive question because, Plaintiff’ classmates believe Defendant Moira Ringo’ statements about Plaintiff’ alleged adultery and Plaintiff is bringing someone else as his wife, despite few times Plaintiff told to these same classmates that he is married and living with his wife in Philadelphia. 98. In 2nd Week of June 2008, during the WEMBA students’ partners’ weekend, Plaintiff introduced his wife to several of his classmates, including spouses of the Sanjay Mishra and Sreedhar Manjigani along with Tina Hong. 99. Later, in the evening, Plaintiff introduced his wife to Rajiv Prasad Kolagani and Anj Balusu and to their spouses and sit together at the same dinner table. While, everyone at the table having dinner, Rajiv Prasad Kolagani told to Anj Balusu and to his spouse that Plaintiff is staying “illegal” in this country. 100. After the dinner, Plaintiff called on Rajiv Prasad Kolagani, and asked him what made him to believe that Plaintiff is “illegal” in this country and asked his explanation. At that time, Defendant Rajiv Prasad Kolagani’ answer was abrupt and dismissive. 101. Plaintiff believe that, Rajiv Prasad Kolagani speculated and prejudiced Plaintiff because of his marital status and “age difference between him and his wife” as a proxy to his “illusionary” defect on part of Plaintiff as an “illegal alien”. 102. Plaintiff believe that Defendant Moira Ringo’ statements about Plaintiff’ alleged adultery established some preconceived notions about Plaintiff in the minds of his classmates, and after Plaintiff introduced his wife, Plaintiff’ classmates draw their own conclusions and one of the conclusion is Plaintiff as an “illegal alien”. Case 1:12-cv-01223 Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 14 of 125
  15. 15. Page - 15 - of 125 103. In July 2008, Duke conducted an on campus recruitment event. Plaintiff along with his classmates attended that event. At that campus recruitment event, Plaintiff classmates Rick Weiss and Suhash Bhavsar followed Plaintiff and made several hand and facial gestures to recruiters, while several recruiters are watching them by conveying a meaning that Plaintiff is not a good candidate. 104. On 28th July 2008, Plaintiff contacted Rick Weiss via email as follows: “Rick, It looks like you have an issue with me. I did observe that you are trying to ridicule or undermine me. I would like to make some things clear with you. Let me know when would be good time for you to talk to me?” 105. On 29th July 2008, Rick Weiss responded to Plaintiff as follows: “Vamsi, I'm not sure where you got that idea from, but maybe that's part of the problem. I'll be around Fuqua all day today and I'll be more than happy to talk to you. Rick” 106. Immediately, Plaintiff in a gentle manner spoke with Rick Weiss and explained his hand and facial gestures putting down the Plaintiff in front of recruiters along with Suhash Bhavsar and asked him to explain what message he is getting from those hand and facial gestures. Rick Weiss response was vague and abrupt. 107. Rick Weiss’ hand and facial gestures putting down the Plaintiff by using another classmate as his/her sidekick and made non-aural insinuating remarks against Plaintiff in a mocking fashion way. 108. Then immediately, Plaintiff enquired Duke Administration, whether Rick Weiss along with Suhash Bhavsar’ hand and facial gestures putting down the Plaintiff in front of recruiters at the recruitment events were allowed as per Duke’ anti-harassment policy. At that time, Duke Administration told to Plaintiff that Duke Policy doesn’t allow such kind of behavior. 109. At that time, Plaintiff told to Duke Administration about Rick Weiss and Suhash Bhavsar’ behavior and how it affected him, because recruiters didn’t pay attention to Plaintiff’ resume and asked Duke Administration to take an action. Nevertheless, Duke Administration didn’t take any action against Rick Weiss and Suhash Bhavsar. 110. Plaintiff believe that Defendant Moira Ringo’ statements about Plaintiff lacking academic integrity and alleged past academic dishonesty established preconceived notions about Case 1:12-cv-01223 Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 15 of 125
  16. 16. Page - 16 - of 125 Plaintiff in the minds of Rick Weiss and Suhash Bhavsar, and with that preconceived notions, Rick Weiss and Suhash Bhavsar draw their own conclusions and with that backdrop Rick Weiss and Suhash Bhavsar told to recruiters not to hire Plaintiff. 111. While Plaintiff struggling to understand the reason for WEMBA students hostility towards Plaintiff, in July 2008, Sarah Rosen Shah, Duke’ admissions councilor relocated from Durham, NC to Philadelphia, PA and specifically purchased a condo in the building in which Plaintiff was residing for over three years. 112. In fact and indeed, after Sarah Rosen Shaw relocated from Durham, NC to Philadelphia, PA and moved into building in which Plaintiff was residing, conducted psychological operation and induced the behavior of other residents in and around building favorable to Duke professors and Plaintiff classmates objectives, by undermine Plaintiff’ professional status and personal standing by way of isolation and destabilization. 113. As soon, Sarah Rosen Shaw relocated to Philadelphia, PA, told to Plaintiff’ neighbors about Plaintiff’ private and confidential information, such as his past academic record; his current and future career plans embedded in the admission essays; recommenders’ opinions about Plaintiff which was expressed in recommendation letters; Plaintiff’ own opinions about Plaintiff which he expressed in his admission essays in violation to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99). 114. In addition, Sarah Rosen Shah, after relocating from Durham, NC to Philadelphia, PA maintained constant contact with the Defendants trough various channels such as email, social networking sites, telephone and through travel. 115. Since, July 2008 and until Plaintiff completes his MBA at Duke, Sarah Rosen Shah and Defendants, in real-time exchange details of the Defendants repeated, ongoing and objectionable egregious verbal attacks against Plaintiff at Duke. 116. In real-time Sarah Rosen Shah relayed Defendants egregious verbal attacks6 against Plaintiff to Plaintiffs’ neighbors. 6 Since, July 2008 until Plaintiff completes his MBA program at Duke, Sarah Rosen Shah relayed the statements made by Plaintiff’ classmates to Plaintiff neighbors as “Vamsi is a criminal”; “Vamsi was implicated in murder cases”; “Vamsi was a Juvenile”; “Vamsi is having rough time at School”, “Vamsi is getting failing grades” and Case 1:12-cv-01223 Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 16 of 125
  17. 17. Page - 17 - of 125 117. After, Plaintiff challenged Professor Jill Stowe’ blatant errors and due to subsequent changes to Plaintiff’ letter grade, Duke allowed Plaintiff to continue in the WEMBA program. 118. Despite, Duke allowed Plaintiff to continue in the WEMBA program, Defendants along with Plaintiff’ class representatives7 obstructed Plaintiff from freely participating in the class discussions by asking Duke Professors to prevent Plaintiff from asking questions in the class. This is in violation to Duke Policy. 119. Since, Defendants along with Plaintiff’ class representatives blocked Plaintiff from seeking clarifications from professors, and interfering with Plaintiffs’ learning process and learning ability, Plaintiff begins to post his questions in the Duke’ course on-line portal. 120. As soon Plaintiff begins to post his questions in the Duke’ course on-line portal, since 1st week of August 2008, Sanjay Mishra, Sreedhar Manjigani, Guru Sarma, Rick Weiss, Douglas Bashar and Amit Khare begins to ask Plaintiff not to post his questions in the Duke’ course on-line portal. 121. In response to Sanjay Mishra, Sreedhar Manjigani, Guru Sarma, Rick Weiss, Douglas Bashar and Amit Khare’ demand, Plaintiff told to them because Defendants along with Plaintiff’ class representatives blocked Plaintiff from seeking clarifications from professors, and interfering with Plaintiffs’ learning process and learning ability, Plaintiff has to seek his clarifications by posting his questions in the Duke’ course on-line portal. 122. Despite, Plaintiffs’ reasonable explanation, Sanjay Mishra, Sreedhar Manjigani, Guru Sarma, Rick Weiss, Douglas Bashar and Amit Khare insisted upon Plaintiff not to post any questions or responses in the Duke’ course on-line portal. 123. Plaintiff believe that because, Defendant Moira Ringo told to Plaintiffs’ classmates that Plaintiff lacks academic integrity and alleged past academic dishonesty, Sanjay Mishra, Sreedhar Manjigani, Guru Sarma, Rick Weiss, Douglas Bashar and Amit Khare established negative perception about Plaintiff, and with that perception, Plaintiff’ classmates shut-out “Vamsi is illegal in this country”. “Vamsi engaged in money laundering business”; “Vamsi plagiarized during the course”, “Vamsi is carrying a gun in the campus”; “Vamsi is a ‘B’ student”; “Vamsi is 3rd class student”; “Vamsi is pimp”; and “Vamsi is gay”; “Vamsi, is using psycho stimulants”; 7 Dan Paschke, John D. Cooper, Kristofer Singleton, and Tim Barry Case 1:12-cv-01223 Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 17 of 125
  18. 18. Page - 18 - of 125 Plaintiff from being visible to professors, because as per Duke’ policy being active in the on- line in the Duke’ course on-line web portal, is also counts towards class participation, and class participation get certain points towards final course score and Defendants don’t want Plaintiff to get higher scores, hence blocked Plaintiff from participating in the course discussions. 124. On 15th September 2008, Plaintiff contacted Defendant Moira Ringo via email8 and asked her as to why she is propagating negative information about Plaintiff. Nevertheless, Defendant Moira Ringo didn’t respond to Plaintiff. 125. On 15th September 2008, Plaintiff contacted Rajiv Patnaik via email9 and asked him why he is shutting-out Plaintiff. However, Rajiv Patnaik denied10 Plaintiff’ findings about him shutting-out Plaintiff by telling that his comments are not directed towards Plaintiff, but directed towards another Plaintiff’ classmate Uday Kumar. 126. Rajiv Patnaik’ verbal abuse is a classic example as to how Plaintiff’ classmates use another classmate as his/her sidekick made verbal assaults and made insinuating verbal remarks against Plaintiff in a mocking fashion way. 127. On 15th September 2008, Plaintiff contacted Guru Sarma via email11 and asked him why he is shutting-out Plaintiff from participating in the class discussions. However, Guru Sarma 8 “Moira Ringo, throughout the 1st & 2nd semesters you have propagated negative information, with an intention to afflict pain to me. Why did you do that? Who provided you that information? What is your source of information? Do you want me to remind you about where, how and what did you say? I need a straight answer”. 9 “Rajiv Patnaik, Why are you trying to pass insulting comments? You know that "Chup Bhe" is a derogatory word. Why should I shut my mouth? Who are you to ask me? You passed similar kind of comments in the first term and you know that. What made you think that I will keep quiet?” 10 Hi Vamshi, that was supposed to be a joke and I was actually telling that to Uday and was not really directed at you. Uday and I have a very informal relationship and we pass comments at each other all the time for fun. "Chup be" is not always a derogatory comment and is a very commonly used term - especially between friends. Words like "Chup be" and "Sala" are used very informally and very commonly and not always meant to insult people. They of course can be used as an insult depending on the context and depends on the tone of the person. I apologize if it was insulting to you because that was defintely not my intention. You are absolutely correct that I am no one to tell you to shut up and I definitely did not say it to you. Honestly, I don't even remmber saying that to you earlier and again it was never my intension to insult you. So hopefully you are able to put this behind you and do not take this personally. Rajiv.” 11 “Guru Sarma, You have asked me not to post any comments on the bulletin boards. Do you know that it is offensive? It is my right to express and communicate with fellow students. This is not the first time you passed Case 1:12-cv-01223 Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 18 of 125
  19. 19. Page - 19 - of 125 cleverly denied12 by saying that he never said don’t post any discussions, but said spare him and other students from the ton of messages. 128. It is self evident from the both Rajiv Patnaik and Guru Sarma’ responses, that they both attempted to block Plaintiff from participating in the class discussions. 129. But by the end of September 2008, there were numerous false stories floating around Duke, which severely impacted Plaintiff’ reputation. Among the rumors, the notable ones are “Plaintiff is a Juvenile Delinquent”, “Plaintiff was implicated in murder cases” and “Plaintiff engaged in money laundering business”. 130. By the end of September 2008, defendants’ psychological manipulation of Plaintiff through subtle, indirect, or implied threats, lead the Plaintiff to hesitate to mingle with WEMBA students. 131. Right around that time, in September 2008, Defendant Brooke Balcom, several times, walk- past Plaintiff and inappropriately hit Plaintiff with her hip or her upper body portion, when Plaintiff standing in the line for the food or move in and out of the classroom during the class breaks. 132. Because there is so much hostility towards Plaintiff in the Duke Campus, Plaintiff didn’t say a word to either Defendant Brooke Balcom or to Duke Administration, but took extraordinary measure to avoid Defendant Brooke Balcom. comments at me (and you know that). Alternatively, do you want me to remind you the situations? Why did you do that?” 12 “Vamsi, I am totally sorry. I never said don’t post any. I said spare us from the ton of messages. C’mon man, there was a period earlier this term, when the # of messages just went up sky rocketing and it was not possible to follow the various posts. I am sorry that it was sounding offensive. But it almost came across as if you had all the time to post, while many or at least I found it even difficult to read post (forget about writing any). It would have been easy from your perspective when you get involved with the posts, but it becomes difficult to follow every message on the boards amidst of the crunching assignments and exams. We may very well be partners in the next term. You never know. But I should have been more clear and not jovial about it. Where else did I say this apart from this weekend? I did mention in the computing lounge if there is a way to rank the various messages so that I could make use of the ranking done by a majority of the classmates, rather than just by the # of posts in a thread. But that was a constructive tool addition for everyone. It is not singled out against you. Okay if there has been any other comments made by me let me know. It takes a strong character to come out and open up with me directly. I am sorry and would like to maintain good terms with you. Guru.” Case 1:12-cv-01223 Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 19 of 125
  20. 20. Page - 20 - of 125 133. While, Plaintiff took extraordinary measure to avoid Defendant Brooke Balcom, sometime in October 2008, approached Plaintiff, when Plaintiff is waiting to catch a bus to go to airport, in front of other students said that “you are full off it….”. 134. At that-time Plaintiff didn’t fully understand Defendant Brooke Balcom’ expression, but guessed that she isn’t saying anything nice, and Plaintiff moved away from Defendant Brooke Balcom. 135. When Plaintiff fly back to Philadelphia, PA, when he relayed it to his wife about Defendant Brooke Balcom’ expression, and she explained it to him and Plaintiff understood that Defendant Brook Balcom spreading slanderous messages about him in the student community. 136. Since October 2008, Defendant Brooke Balcom, has been proliferating among Plaintiff’ classmates about Plaintiff saying that, “he was an angry and unhappy person”, which made other students to outcast Plaintiff. 137. While, Plaintiff is an outcast among the students, in the beginning of October 2008, Duke assigned Plaintiff into a new team; and Plaintiff’ new team member are Navaneeth Latawa and Defendants Robert Ball, Robert Ross and Shana Keating. 138. Plaintiff heard a rumor that Defendants Robert Ball, Robert Ross and Shana Keating, scuttle Plaintiff and compel Duke to expel Plaintiff. 139. As soon new team is formed, Plaintiff’ new teammates Defendants Robert Ball, Robert Ross and Shana Keating proposed to use new software applications that aren’t authorized by Duke. 140. Plaintiff objected to use software applications that aren’t authorized by Duke, because Plaintiff purchased infrastructure to use Duke’ authorized software. 141. In addition, the software applications proposed by Defendants Robert Ball, Robert Ross and Shana Keating don’t allow Plaintiff to know who are all present during a virtual team meeting and any person sitting beside Defendants Robert Ball, Robert Ross and Shana Keating can listen discussions. 142. In addition Plaintiff was worried that Defendants Robert Ball, Robert Ross and Shana Keating covertly record Plaintiffs conversations and later use those conversations against Plaintiff. Case 1:12-cv-01223 Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 20 of 125
  21. 21. Page - 21 - of 125 143. Despite, Plaintiff raised his objections to use the software applications that aren’t authorized by Duke, Defendants Robert Ball, Robert Ross and Shana Keating as majority dictated, mandated and imposed their unilateral decision to use non authorized software upon Plaintiff. Since then, Plaintiff was a reluctant participant in the team meetings. 144. In addition, Defendants Robert Ball, Robert Ross and Shana Keating shut-out Plaintiff’ reasonable suggestions as to how to tackle team projects. 145. In addition, Defendants Robert Ball, Robert Ross and Shana Keating’ body language and non verbal gestures clearly suggests Plaintiff, that they are undermining Plaintiff’ credibility. 146. Plaintiff believe that Defendants Moira Ringo and Brook Balcom’ proliferation that Plaintiff as an angry and unhappy person; lacks academic integrity and alleged adultery lead Defendants Robert Ball, Robert Ross and Shana Keating to undermine Plaintiff’ credibility. 147. While this is going on, Sanjay Mishra made devious, deceitful and insinuating remarks about Plaintiff’ academic integrity, so on 18th October 2008 Plaintiff contacted Sanjay Mishra and asked him as to why he is making insinuating remarks about Plaintiff’ academic integrity. In response, Sanjay Mishra denied13 that he ever made any insinuating remarks about Plaintiff’ academic integrity. 148. Nevertheless, because Plaintiff unequivocally told to Sanjay Mishra about his insinuating remarks about Plaintiff’ academic integrity, on 20th October 2009, Plaintiff and responded14 to Sanjay Mishra by saying that Plaintiff will do will do whatever is necessary to protect his dignity and freedom. 13 “Hi Vamsi, I have no political profess like you so I will be direct. I am flabbergasted with your false confusing and accusing phone call. I am feeling bit harassed. I have a great respect for your bold unique thinking style and your entrepreneurship energy. If you like, similar to other people perception issues you have shared with our previous team and me in the past, we can talk face-to-face next time we meet. Once I understand your concerns properly, I promise work with you to resolve them. I am confident we can keep our friendship intact. As I also mentioned during your phone call, you can take this matter to the Fuqua body, for proper due diligence. Your call. Thanks Sanjay 14 “Thank you for your email. I sincerely believe that I have been harassed by the fellow students and you are one of them. I am surprised by your response that I am harassing you. I will do whatever is necessary to protect my dignity and freedom. Thank You, Vamsidhar” Case 1:12-cv-01223 Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 21 of 125
  22. 22. Page - 22 - of 125 149. As soon as Plaintiff made it clear that he will do whatever is necessary to protect his dignity and freedom, next day, on 21st October 2008, Jason Link started an on-line discussion about guns15 on Duke’ web portal and personally enticed Plaintiff to respond to his posting about guns. 150. Plaintiff was suspicious about Jason Link’ approach, and didn’t respond to Jason Link’ prodding to participate in his on-line discussion about guns on Duke’ web portal. 151. Nevertheless, there are very many Plaintiff’ classmates16 quickly, enthusiastically participated in the discussion and declared as to how many guns that they own and the size of the bullets that they use and how recently that they fired those guns. 152. Because, Plaintiff didn’t participate in Jason Link’ on-line discussion about guns on Duke’ web portal, Jason Link along with Defendant Pete Walton, Kristopher Singleton, Doug Basher, Amit Khare, John Dohnal and Greg Valentine personally approached Plaintiff and asked Plaintiff to come to a firing range. But Plaintiff told to Jason Link that he isn’t interested to go a firing range. 153. Because, there are very many classmates through their behavior, verbal assaults, and non- verbal gestures made it known to Plaintiff that, they are committed to make Plaintiff’ life in and out of Duke miserable, Plaintiff believed that Defendant Pete Walton along with Jason Link, Kristopher Singleton, Doug Basher, Amit Khare, John Dohnal and Greg Valentine had personal animosity, hatred and anger against Plaintiff and suspected about the motives behind the on-line discussion about guns and avoided on-line discussion about guns and refused to go to shooting range along with Plaintiff’ classmates. 154. Plaintiff and suspected the motives behind the on-line discussion about guns, is because as to how the on-line discussion about guns were initiated and the online comments made by several of his classmates, indirectly referring to Plaintiff’ casual comments about his liking towards gold wrist watches made by renowned watch makers like ‘Patek Philippe’ and 15 Subject: I keep my hand on my gun, cuz they got me on the run  Don't think I've seen this discussed yet...politics aside...if you were looking for a first firearm, what would be your choice? Basically, I'm looking for a gun to keep around the house and take to the range (mainly for the range)...Opinions? 16 John Espey, James Morgan, Kristofer Singleton, Dan Paschke, Tim Barry, Nat Hawkins, John Cooper, Jason Sundberg, John H. Dohnal Case 1:12-cv-01223 Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 22 of 125
  23. 23. Page - 23 - of 125 ‘Audemars Piguet’ and sarcastically asking Plaintiff to wear those watches and come to shooting range. 155. Few days later, in October 2008, Duke organized a Halloween party for WEMBA students and Plaintiff was reluctant to participate in the class functions, due to his classmates’ personal animosity, hatred, anger and slanderous verbal assaults against Plaintiff. 156. However, Duke Administration organized the Halloween party in the R. David Thomas center at the dinner hall, when dinner is served for the WEMBA students and it was inevitable to Plaintiff to come across his classmates’ at Halloween party. 157. While, Plaintiff was alone, sitting quietly and taking his dinner and at that time Jason Sundberg dressed like a “pimp” approached Plaintiff along with other students and told to Plaintiff that his dress is suitable for “Vamsi’ real life”. 158. Then, Plaintiff make it known to Jason Sundberg that it isn’t right to make a parallel to his party dress and to Plaintiff real life, because throughout the world pimp17 draw a seriously negative attention in the society and moved away from Jason Sundberg along with dinner plate and sit at a different location in the diner hall to complete his dinner. 159. As soon, Plaintiff relocated to a different seat, Pradeep Rajagopal gathered few students around Plaintiff and instigated another student Ashish Chhabra to call the Plaintiff something like “Madar Chod” or “Mai Chod” in Hindi. Plaintiff didn’t understand the meaning of Ashish Chhabra’ comment, but had a feeling that it must mean something terrible, so Plaintiff asked Ashish Chhabra the meaning of his Hindi comment. At that time, Pradeep Rajagopal interjected and told the meaning of that Hindi comment is “mother fucker” in English. 160. Right after that, Gregory Valentine gathered few students around Plaintiff and started talking about Plaintiff’ performance in Probability and Statistics examination and told to the Plaintiff that he knew that “Vamsi is a ‘B’ student”. Then, Plaintiff enquired Gregory 17 A pimp is an agent for prostitutes who collects part of their earnings. This act is called procuring. The pimp may receive this money in return for advertising services, physical protection, or for providing, and possibly monopolizing, a location where she may engage clients. Case 1:12-cv-01223 Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 23 of 125
  24. 24. Page - 24 - of 125 Valentine as, “what made you to talk like that?”. Then Gregory Valentine told to Plaintiff that, “I knew your grades”. Then, Plaintiff enquired Gregory Valentine as, “how did you come to know my grades?”. But Gregory Valentine’ response was vague and abrupt. 161. Gregory Valentine knowing about Plaintiff’ grades is in violation to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99), because he don’t have any need to know about Plaintiff’ grades. 162. Right after that, Plaintiff moved his seat and went outside of the R. David Thomas Center dinner hall to complete his dinner. At that time, Defendant Peter Walton gathered few students around Plaintiff and started reiterating Jason Sundberg, Pradeep Rajagopal and Ashish Chhabra’ derogatory remarks. 163. Then, Plaintiff told to Defendant Peter Walton “leave me alone” and in response, Defendant Peter Walton said to Plaintiff, “You are a 3rd class student” in front of other students. 164. Plaintiff immediately reported to Duke Administration about obscene language and conduct of Jason Sundberg, Pradeep Rajagopal and Ashish Chhabra. Nevertheless, Duke Administration didn’t even respond to Plaintiff. 165. While Plaintiff has been shut-out in the class and outside the class by the defendants, throughout November 2008 and December 2008, Defendants Robert Ball, Robert Ross and Shana Keating shut-out Plaintiff within the Duke’ learning team and discarded every contribution made by Plaintiff towards Duke course work and refused to include Plaintiff’ contribution in the class project, without providing any reason. 166. On 9th January 2009, Plaintiff questioned the reason for not including Plaintiff’ contribution in the class project, Defendant Robert Ross told to Plaintiff in front of Defendants Robert Ball and Robert Ross that, “you dug a hole for yourself to get buried”, while very many students prominently looking at Defendant Robert Ross and Plaintiff. 167. Immediately Plaintiff became alarmed because just a day before, on 8th January 2009, Plaintiff’ manager at Wyeth used the exact same phrase said the same phrase “you dug a hole for yourself to get buried” against Plaintiff. 168. So at that time, Plaintiff asked the Defendant Robert Ross, “What made you to talk like that?” Instead answering Plaintiff’ question, Defendant Robert Ross further accused Plaintiff, Case 1:12-cv-01223 Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 24 of 125
  25. 25. Page - 25 - of 125 that “you have plagiarized during your undergraduate program and probably you plagiarize now”; in response, Plaintiff asked Defendant Robert Ross, “why do you say that, I have plagiarized and who told you that I have plagiarized in my undergraduate program?” Defendant Robert Ross response was dismissive, vague and abrupt. 169. At the same time, Defendant Shana Keating made several hand and facial gestures in a mocking fashion-way along with Defendant Robert Ball, while several classmates are watching her by conveying a meaning that Plaintiff is not intelligent. 170. Immediately after the conversation, Defendant Robert Ross discarded all of Plaintiff’ contributions to the Managerial Accounting course work and submitted final paper as per Defendants Robert Ball, Robert Ross and Shana Keating’ agenda and didn’t event explain to Plaintiff, as to why they are discarding Plaintiff’ contributions. 171. On 9th January 2009, evening, Plaintiff tried to make peace with other students, so Plaintiff along with other students Anj Balusu and Rajiv Kolagani went outside the Duke to have their dinner together. 172. By the time Plaintiff, Anj Balusu and Rajiv Kolagani went to the restaurant, Jamie Thompson and Defendant Brooke Balcom having dinner at that restaurant; restaurant asked Plaintiff, Anj Balusu and Rajiv Kolagani to sit at an adjoin table to Jamie Thompson and Defendant Brooke Balcom. 173. Rajiv Kolagani and Anj Balusu having conversations with Jamie Thompson and Defendant Brooke Balcom and during those conversations, Rajiv Kolagani made accusatory style verbal remarks against Plaintiff, that he had a police “Rap Sheet”. Immediately, Plaintiff denied Rajiv Kolagani’ statement and left the dinner table. 174. After, returning from the restaurant, while Plaintiff quietly sitting in the R. David Thomas Center’ lounge area, Amit Khare gathered several classmates and started asking questions about Plaintiff’ business. 175. In response, Plaintiff told to Amit Khare, that he don’t want to answer his questions. In response, Amit Khare made accusatory style verbal remarks against Plaintiff, that “none of the classmates believe you”. While Plaintiff is dismayed with Amit Khare’ accusation, Case 1:12-cv-01223 Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 25 of 125
  26. 26. Page - 26 - of 125 Pratibhash Chattopadhyay made a depreciatory verbal remark attributing to Plaintiff, that “he is low self esteemed person”. 176. Plaintiff doesn’t know how to respond and tackle the defendants and his classmates verbal mauling and left to his room without responding to Amit Khare and Pratibhash Chattopadhyay. 177. Next day, on 10th January 2009, Plaintiff tried to make peace with Defendants Robert Ball, Robert Ross and Shana Keating, and met them during coffee break. At that time, Defendant Robert Ross made accusatory style verbal remarks against Plaintiff that “you are a load on the team and not contributed as much I contributed”. At that time, Plaintiff responded to Defendant Robert Ross that “it is not a fact, it is your opinion and you are entitled to have an opinion” and Plaintiff left to classroom without waiting for Defendant Robert Ross response. 178. On 10th January 2009, after noon, when Plaintiff coming back from break-room into the class, Defendant Brooke Balcom, inappropriately hit Plaintiff with her hip and immediately Plaintiff was upset with Defendant Brooke Balcom and asked, “why did you say to me ‘you are full of it’”. Defendant Brooke Balcom without responding to Plaintiff walks past Plaintiff and showing an upbeat gave a high five to Defendant Daniel Paschke. 179. On 10th January 2009, after classes are over, Defendants Brooke Balcom, Daniel Bennion, John Cooper, Daniel Paschke, Robert Ross, Robert Ball, Nathaniel Hawkins, Peter Walton, Moira Ringo and Shana Keating in an organized fashion fabricated and unveiled a dramatic, exaggerated and sensationalized story against Plaintiff to get an immediate attention from Duke Administration and to compel Duke Administration to expel Plaintiff from Duke. 180. On 10th January 2009, Defendant Daniel Paschke made a oral complaint against Plaintiff to Katherine Amato18 and wrote an email complaint to John Gallagher19 and Alaina Filkin20 by exaggerating Plaintiff’ casual enquiry with Defendant Brooke Balcom as a verbal 18 Assistant Dean, Executive MBA Programs, The Fuqua School of Business, Duke University 19 Associate Dean, Executive MBA Programs, The Fuqua School of Business, Duke University. 20 Assistant Director, Executive MBA Programs, The Fuqua School of Business, Duke University Case 1:12-cv-01223 Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 26 of 125
  27. 27. Page - 27 - of 125 confrontation21 ; and dramatized Defendant Brooke Balcom’ reactions to Plaintiff’ casual enquiry. 181. In addition, Defendant Daniel Paschke made a big deal out of simple Plaintiff’ enquiry and catastrophized simple event of Plaintiff’ gentle enquiry to Defendant Brooke Balcom as to why she is spreading accusatory style remarks against Plaintiff. 182. In fact, when Plaintiff attempted to enquire Defendant Brooke Balcom, she simply ignored and walk past Plaintiff and in an upbeat gave a high five to Defendant Daniel Paschke. But Defendant Daniel Paschke dramatized, exaggerated and sensationalized by lying that Defendant Brooke Balcom is visibly upset to a point of crying and shaking. 183. On 11th January 2009, Defendant Daniel Paschke wrote another email22 to John Gallagher and Alaina Filkin by exaggerating a single verbal enquiry of Defendant Moira Ringo as a never-ending pattern of Plaintiff’ ‘run-in’ behavior. 21 “John & Alaina, It was brought to the class reps attention at the end of this weekend that one of our classmates has had an altercation with more than one student and some folks are beginning to feel uncomfortable with this particular student. I have firsthand knowledge from one student for sure that there was an incident towards the end of the day that left a student visibly upset to the point of crying and shaking a little bit. Cleary this is not acceptable and violates the learning environment we are all interested in having while at Fuqua. Several other students approached me today with some other anecdotal stories regarding this same person. Obviously this needs to be addressed but is something the class reps feel strongly we need input/action/guidance from the administration on. I have left a message on the WEMBA voicemail hotline (I believe it was Catherina Amatto's voicemail) regarding this matter as well. We are requesting a conference call as soon as possible to discuss possible next steps. I can be reached at 919.740.4449 if needed and waiting until Monday is not necessary if see fit. I am happy to discuss over the phone tonight or Sunday if this is received. Thank you for your prompt attention in this matter. DP” 22 “John and Alaina, upon beginning to ask questions in regards to Vamisdhar, students who I spoke with mentioned other students who the knew had negative encounters with Vamisdhar. Followed up with as many of those students as I could in a vague way to give them a chance to talk about their encounter. Moira Ringo is one of those students who called me this evening and was very glad to know we have involved you both to look into his behavior. She forwarded me the below email that was sent to her from Vamisdhar a few months ago that she originally choose to ignore but did save a copy of. She also was confronted by him this past weekend and witnessed the confrontation with Greg Valentine. - Both her account of what happened and the original email are below in this string of emails. Please include her in your list of potential students to talk with regarding his behavior. l She told me she would be more than happy to discuss her interactions with either of you but is very glad that some action has been taken as she is not comfortable with his behavior right now. I believe there is a bit of a cry for help here from the pattern I am seeing develop. Again, thank you to you both for taking this seriously as I believe we have a fellow classmate who is in need of some help. Please let me know if you need anything else from me” Case 1:12-cv-01223 Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 27 of 125
  28. 28. Page - 28 - of 125 184. It is evident that Defendant Daniel Paschke attempted to manipulate John Gallagher and Alaina Filkin’ perception about Plaintiff through deception, by dramatizing, exaggerating, sensationalizing and fabricating facts. 185. In addition, on 10th January 2009 when John Gallagher called Defendant Daniel Paschke to find more information about his alleged verbal confrontation, Defendant Daniel Paschke didn’t say single fact that as to how he himself harassed Plaintiff by out-casting and shut-out Plaintiff in the class. 186. In addition, Defendant Daniel Paschke lied to John Gallagher that he had seen Defendant Brooke Balcom return to class where she appeared shaken up and emotional following the last class break of the day, when in fact Defendant Brooke Balcom was in upbeat and gave a high five immediately after Plaintiff asked why she said that ‘you are full of it’. 187. In addition, Defendant Daniel Paschke lied to John Gallagher that Defendant Brooke Balcom reported to him that she had a verbal confrontation with Plaintiff during the break and it left her shaken and crying. 188. In addition, Defendant Daniel Paschke lied to John Gallagher, that Defendant Brooke Balcom was confused and unsure what it was that Plaintiff was accusing her of, when in fact Defendant Brooke Balcom was in upbeat and gave a high five immediately after Plaintiff asked why she said that ‘you are full of it’. 189. In addition, Defendant Daniel Paschke told to John Gallagher, when Defendant Daniel Paschke shared Defendant Brooke Balcom’ reported incident with other class representatives, some of them reported having heard comments about Plaintiff’ behavior in the past. 190. On 11th January 2009, Defendant Daniel Paschke wrote another email to John Gallagher after he spoke with John Gallagher and added even more dramatic, exaggerated and sensationalized information by dubbing Plaintiff’ simple enquiry as overly aggressive23 . 23 “John, Thank you for calling me today to discuss the incidents with a few students this weekend. Per our conversation, the student who was overly aggressive with others was Vamsidhar Vurimindi. The other students we discussed you speaking with are: 1) Brooke Balcom - female student who I spoke with first hand and was crying/shaking after the confrontation Case 1:12-cv-01223 Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 28 of 125
  29. 29. Page - 29 - of 125 191. In addition, on 11th January 2009, Defendant Daniel Paschke wrote an email24 to other Class representatives25 in a tone and manner that Duke Administration affirmed his catastrophization of simple Plaintiff’ enquiry and suggested to other Class representatives to continue to shut-out Plaintiff in the Duke Campus. 192. 193. On 11th January 2009, Defendant Moira Ringo ruthlessly is having no qualms about causing harm to Plaintiff, lied26 about Plaintiff’ interactions with her. 2) Greg Valentine - student who I also spoke with first hand who had a less aggressive encounter but one none the less during the same break 3) Daniel Bennion - student who said 4 or 6 people at his lunch table had received confrontational emails from the same individual 4) Nat Hawkins - student who first shared the Brooke story and other details with me and asked that I involve the class reps and/or administration Per our discussion, I will give Brooke and Greg a heads up you them but will let your discussions lead you from there regarding other names. I just wanted you to have them in writing in case you felt you needed them. Thanks again for your attention to this matter and please let us know how we can help going forward. 24 Class reps, John has asked that we keep our eyes and ears open for more information around this topic and share anything we hear about. Other than that, he plans to make contact with Brooke and maybe Greg and decide were to go from there. His discussions with those 2 will be what helps him decide if/when he contacts Vamisdhar directly or what the next steps are. Let me know if you have any questions. DP” 25 John D. Cooper, Kristofer Singleton, and Tim Barry 26 Here is the e-mail I got from Vamsi back in September. At this point in time, I had spoken to him about 10 minutes total and even had to look him up in the directory to figure out who he was. I wrote back and asked him to explain this e-mail, and he never responded. After the e-mail, I avoided speaking to him because he seemed to make poorly informed and disrespectful statements with others in public forums. On Saturday, he approached me in the break room and stated that in was applying my ethical standard at work; he was concerned about the future of my company because he 'had skin in the game.' I responded that health care was pretty unique in terms of ethical standard, to which he responded with a very energetic list of his qualifications to make the statement that he had. He appeared to be picking a fight with me, so I walked away and went to class. A few hours later I saw him talking to Greg in the hallway in a raised tone. When Greg and Derek came into the classroom later, they were both stunned and Greg was upset. Greg was on-deck to present in Econ class, and I did not want this to shake him. I assured Greg that Vamsi had picked a fight with me earlier that day and that was just how he was. Robert Ross came over and told Greg that Vamsi had another interaction with a student as well. The e-mail that he sent me and the argument he had with Greg are not within normal behavior. Picking two tights with different students within a few hours is also not typical. Be careful how you approach this because I think there is more going on here than a difficult person, and I do not want you or the student reps to chew up unnecessary energy on something that may not be able to be reasoned out. If I were in your shoes, I would want to see an option where he's given the feedback and advised to get some counseling/evaluation. He asked to speak with me after class on Friday, and I refused. I plan to simply avoid him. I will keep you updated if he e-mails me or tries to pick another fight with me, but I do not expect it to be a problem. Moira” Case 1:12-cv-01223 Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 29 of 125
  30. 30. Page - 30 - of 125 194. On 12th January 2009, when John Gallagher called Defendant Brooke Balcom, she lied, exaggerated and sensationalized27 Plaintiff’ simple casual enquiry as an angry conversation. 195. In addition Defendant Brooke Balcom lied28 to John Gallagher that she is trying to communicate with Plaintiff in a friendly manner, when in fact Defendant Brooke Balcom disregarded and ignored Plaintiff’ enquiry and walk past Plaintiff. 196. In addition Defendant Brooke Balcom lied29 exaggerated and sensationalized to John Gallagher that she was shaken and cried, when in fact she gave a high five to class representative, for successfully upsetting the Plaintiff. 197. In addition Defendant Brooke Balcom malign and smear Plaintiff’ reputation by attributing a sexual harassment30 by Plaintiff to John Gallagher. 198. On 12th January 2009, when John Gallagher called Defendant Nathaniel Hawkins malign and smear31 Plaintiff’ reputation by attributing simple and casual Plaintiff’ email enquiry to other students as “run-ins” to John Gallagher. 199. On 12th January 2009, when John Gallagher called Defendant Nathaniel Hawkins unveiled a sensational fabricated story32 against Plaintiff that, Plaintiff himself told to other students that he carry a gun at all times in the Duke Campus. 27 “Vamsi had come up to me during the last break of the day on Saturday and confronted me with an accusation that I had called him "full of it" in some context in the previous term. I thought he was joking with me and responded accordingly - laughing and chatting. I did not fully understand what Vamsi was saying, but I tried to joke and treat it as a light conversation of some kind. But Vamsi remained very focused, had a clear angry tone, and "looked right through me and past me" with his gaze”. 28 “Vamsi did not pick up on my body language or facial expression through which I am trying to communicate a friendly and casual tone, and a confusion about what he was referring to. As the conversation moved on and Vamsi remained in his posture, she became more and more unsettled. Vamsi retained an angry tone and demanding attitude. Vamsi was clearly upset with me and I did not understand why. I told him that he should not speak to her this way, and that she did not want him to speak with her again”. 29 “I felt shaken and upset, and cried while returning to class. 30 On some level I am concerned that Vamsi was an angry and unhappy person who had now focused on me”. 31 “I never engaged with Vamsi, nor witnessed any interactions personally. But, I heard that other students had found him difficult. Vamsi seems to be somewhat of an outcast in the class, there had been other reports of "run ins" with Vamsi” Case 1:12-cv-01223 Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 30 of 125
  31. 31. Page - 31 - of 125 200. Simultaneously, Defendants Robert Ross, Robert Ball and Shana Keating intensified their malign and smear campaign against by fabricating fictitious stories which directly affect Plaintiff’ reputation by saying that Plaintiff’ daily business conduct is "hanky panky" implying that Plaintiff’ business conduct is dubious and suspicious. 201. In addition, Defendants Robert Ross, Robert Ball and Shana Keating malign and smeared Plaintiff’ reputation by fabricating fictitious stories by saying that Plaintiff’ daily business conduct is "bribing city hall" implying that Plaintiff engaged in corrupt business practice. 202. In addition, Defendants Robert Ross, Robert Ball and Shana Keating malign and smeared Plaintiff’ reputation by fabricating fictitious stories that Plaintiff’ daily business practice involve with employing “goons” implying that Plaintiff engaged goons in his daily business conduct. 203. In fact and indeed Defendants Robert Ross, Robert Ball and Shana Keating’ all fabricated fictitious Plaintiff’ daily business conduct is a big lie, and Plaintiff believe that Defendants Robert Ross, Robert Ball and Shana Keating along with other defendants fabricated fictitious stories against Plaintiff to rationalize their tortious and abusive conduct against Plaintiff. 204. In addition, between 11th January 2009 and 14th January 2009, Defendants Robert Ross, Robert Ball and Shana Keating filed a Duke Honor code violation against Plaintiff with Defendant Barnes baron and Harold Hong, despite it is clear to them that Plaintiff didn’t plagiarize his work. 205. After Defendants Robert Ross, Robert Ball and Shana Keating filed an honor code violation against Plaintiff and found by themselves that Plaintiff didn’t plagiarize his work, and drop the idea to initiate a formal Duke Honor code violation against Plaintiff, discarded all Plaintiff’ contributions into team course work project and when Plaintiff asked as to why they have discarded Plaintiff contributions, Defendants Robert Ross, Robert Ball and Shana Keating falsely accused Plaintiff has ‘plagiarized’ his course work. 206. On 14th January 2009, with the backdrop of the foregoing baseless allegations and accusations against Plaintiff by the defendants, John Gallagher initiated a telephone conversation with Plaintiff and enquired about Plaintiffs interactions with defendants. 32 “Defendant Peter Walton reported that Vamsi had told other students that he carried a weapon at all times”. Case 1:12-cv-01223 Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 31 of 125
  32. 32. Page - 32 - of 125 207. John Gallagher questioned Plaintiff about the alleged ‘verbal assault’ against Defendant Brooke Balcom and Plaintiff told to John Gallagher, that Defendant Brooke Balcom verbally assaulted Plaintiff by saying “you are full of it” in front of several people and to that effect Plaintiff casually enquired why she is verbally assaulting him. 208. On 14th January 2009, after enquiring about Defendant Brooke Balcom’ baseless and false accusation about Plaintiff’ verbal assault, John Gallagher asked Plaintiff “Did you carry a gun on the campus?” Plaintiff was shocked for that question and replied that, “I didn’t carry a gun on the campus”. In addition, Plaintiff reminded John Gallagher that, “I travel to Duke by flying through the commercial airline and passing security checks and it is impossible to carry a gun in the luggage”. 209. In addition, Plaintiff told to John Gallagher that, “on 23rd and 24th January 2009, I need to write Term 3 final exams and whoever complained that I am carrying a gun on the campus is a deliberate attempt to distract me from preparing my examinations” 210. Despite Plaintiff told numerous times to Duke Administration that Defendants are harassing Plaintiff and demanded to impose Duke’ Anti-Harassment Policy and create a congenial atmosphere to Plaintiff, Duke Administration never impose Duke’ Anti-Harassment Policy, but after Defendants Brooke Balcom, Daniel Bennion, John Cooper, Daniel Paschke, Robert Ross, Robert Ball, Nathaniel Hawkins, Peter Walton, Moira Ringo and Shana Keating collectively filed fabricated baseless complaints, Duke Administration compelled Plaintiff to attend for an interrogation before Bill Boulding33 on 23rd January 2009. 211. Based on the discovery documentation, it is clear that Defendants Brooke Balcom, Daniel Bennion, John Cooper, Daniel Paschke, Robert Ross, Robert Ball, Nathaniel Hawkins, Peter Walton, Moira Ringo and Shana Keating black-mailed Duke Administration by rising public dissention by sending bulk emails and publically posting in the Duke’ online portal, where Plaintiff don’t have access to compel Duke Administration to expel Plaintiff from Duke; and in order to appease the defendants, Duke Administration visibly interrogated Plaintiff before the defendants and thereby implying that Duke Administration affirming defendants 33 Senior Associate Dean, Executive MBA Programs, The Fuqua School of Business, Duke University Case 1:12-cv-01223 Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 32 of 125
  33. 33. Page - 33 - of 125 abusive conduct against Plaintiff and give a free hand to defendants to continue the same abusive conduct and harassment against Plaintiff. 212. Despite, on 14th January 2009, Plaintiff assured John Gallagher that he didn’t carry a gun on the campus, on 15th January 2009, Katherine Amato on behalf of Duke, filed a police complaint against Plaintiff bearing report # 2009-0019534 by falsely accusing Plaintiff is confronting with defendants apparently for no reason and further made false accusation against Plaintiff based on a fabricated allegation by the Defendants Peter Walton and Nathaniel Hawkins that Plaintiff told to Defendant Peter Walton that he carries a gun in the campus. 213. After Katherine Amato filed a police complaint against Plaintiff, on 15th January 2009, Katherine Amato contacted wrote an email to Mark Brown35 and enquired him about Plaintiff’ interactions with him and about his concerns with the defendants. 214. In response, Mark Brown told36 to Katherine Amato that Plaintiff told him that he has a problem with just going along with ideas that he does not believe in and he has not learned the skill of the "social white lie". 34 “On 01/15/09 at 1625 hours I responded to speak with Ms. Amato in person. Ms. Amato is the Assistant Dean to Fuqua's Executive MBA Program. She wanted to report suspicious activity about one of the executive students. Ms, Vurimindi or "Vamsy" as he is called commutes to Duke on select weekends and stays at the R David Thomas Center and attends classes at Fuqua. Vamsy has been confronting classmates for apparently no reason confronting them saying, “you don't like me" or "Why are you talking about me or "Do you have a problem with me”. He has locked several students into these confrontations until they become visibly upset. These types of confrontations have also been occurring via emails. Most of the students Ms. Amato has talked to stated that because Vamsy is native born in India that most of these problems have been cultural misunderstandings. But on the same note the students are concerned and the behavior has begun to interrupt their ability to participate in the program. Another concern is one of the rumors that have been passed among some of the students about Vamsy telling someone that he carries a gun. When Ms. Amato attempts to identify who heard him say this and what was said the students all say that they heard it from some one else. She has yet to identify if this is a legitimate concern or just rumor. I gave Ms. Amato some guidance on the law and general crime prevention. I also offered our assistance with any administrative decision they make regarding Mr. Vurimindi to include officer presence, directed patrols, and trespass. She said she needed to talk to her senior administrator and would contact us back. I gave her a contact card. I checked for active warrants for Mr. Vurimindi and found negative results”. 35 Director, Management Communications Ctr, The Fuqua School of Business, Duke University 36 “Kathie, I'm in the lounge in London, and I am about to be called to board in a few minutes. I had quite a bit of contact with Vamsi as the program began for him. He spoke with me about help with English pronunciation, and he seemed to have quite a few issues with people skills. He said that in this country and even now , he has a problem with just going along with ideas that he does not believe in. He has not learned the skill of the "social white lie," he Case 1:12-cv-01223 Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 33 of 125
  34. 34. Page - 34 - of 125 215. After Katherine Amato filed a police complaint against Plaintiff, on 19th January 2009, Katherine Amato called Defendant Peter Walton and enquired him about him saying to Defendant Nathaniel Hawkins that Plaintiff brought a gun onto Duke Campus. 216. On 19th January 2009, Defendant Peter Walton further lied and sensationalized his fabricated story and further implicated Plaintiff by false statements that Plaintiff told him that he is carrying a pistol in his coat37 ; Plaintiff told him that he don’t believe in US law; Plaintiff told him that Plaintiff thinks that he is above law, because he belongs to a high level social and political structure. says, and he has very frequent conflict with people in his family, in his business dealings, and perhaps on his team, though that aspect of this has not come up. I have not spoken with him in any substantial way in months. He seemed to think that the school should be a resource for him as an advisor for his real estate business dealings. I tried to make clear to him that such services were not part of the program. I gave him readings and offered counseling on the interpersonal skills, but I think he just got too busy. The last email I got from him was in April. I did not see any issues on his team (at least on the surface), but I would not be surprised if he had some. He seems to be under a lot of pressure to succeed in his business, and the stress gets to him. He is not that easy to understand, and he oscillates between blaming himself for his shortcomings and blaming others. That's what I know. I would be happy to reach out to him if there are issues. Regards, Mark” 37 “I spoke with Pete Walton today to try and learn more about whether or not Vamsi may have been bringing a weapon onto campus. Pete related an incident which occurred in either late September or October. Pete said he was walking outside and ran into Vamsi speaking with Eugene White. Pete said it was a very warm evening and Vamsi was wearing a very heavy coat, like a trench coat. Pete said he stopped to speak with Vamsi and Eugene and during the course of the conversation he asked Vamsi why he had on a heavy coat on such a warm evening. Vamsi responded that he was carrying a pistol in his coat. When Pete asked why he was carrying a pistol, Vamsi explained ("gave him a history lesson" was the phrase Pete used) that in India only individuals at a certain high level within the political and social structure were allowed to carry weapons and that he, Vamsi, fell into that group. He indicated he had carried a pistol when he was in India and was continuing to do so in the United States. When Pete asked him further if he was aware of US laws about carrying a concealed weapon, Vamsi indicated it did not matter and he was not concerned about those laws as he did not believe they applied to him. Pete and Vamsi engaged in a bit more conversation about weapons and how Vamsi needed to be obeying US laws as well as safety procedures with a weapon. Pete felt in this exchange Vamsi indicated an arrogance or air of superiority relative to US laws, as well as a relatively low knowledge about firearms and firearm safety. At this juncture, Pete ended the conversation and walked away. Pete did not actually see the pistol. Pete began the conversation with me by indicating that he is a "firearms enthusiast," who knows a great deal about weapons, the laws governing their use in the US, and the dangers of carrying a loaded weapon. Pete was dismayed by Vamsi's attitude about carrying a weapon, particularly when he is assuming it is loaded. I have sent an email to Eugene White to see if I can speak with him. Bill, based on what you heard from the Duke police, should I contact them and add this information to their report on file? Kathie” Case 1:12-cv-01223 Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 34 of 125
  35. 35. Page - 35 - of 125 217. As soon, Katherine Amato called Defendant Peter Walton to gather more information about Plaintiff bringing a gun onto campus, Defendant Peter Walton and John Espey restarted discussion about guns and shooting range and encouraged Plaintiff to participate in the discussion. 218. Defendant Peter Walton without informing Plaintiff that Duke Administration called him and enquired him the alleged Plaintiff bringing a gun onto Duke campus, and restarted another discussion about guns and shooting range on 19th January 2009, by saying “Dave, Pete, and I went to the range this weekend. Let me just warn you ahead of time, if you are thinking of breaking into a house in the Charlotte area, I would recommend avoiding Pete's. The best shot of the day came when he put the gun in his non-shooting hand, moved the target 50 feet away, and in one shot put one right between the eyes.”; “Don’t let Espey fool you. His bullets are twice the size of mine and he uses hollow points; might have a problem finding your entire mid-section when he pulls the trigger.....lol. And, your right Scott, I have never cried, haha.” 219. After the fact, Plaintiff believe that the timing of Defendant Peter Walton starting original discussion about guns in October 2008 and restating discussion about the Guns in January 2009, is to create an impetus and alibi to file a complaint against Plaintiff with an intention to compel Duke to expel Plaintiff. 220. After, Defendant Peter Walton ended his encrypted message and after Plaintiff didn’t responded to Defendant Peter Walton’ discussion about guns and shooting range, on 21st January 2009, Katherine Amato called Eugene White and enquired him about the alleged complaint that Plaintiff bringing a weapon onto campus. 221. After the fact, Plaintiff suspicious about the timing of Katherine Amato calling Eugene White; Katherine Amato called Eugene White after Plaintiff didn’t respond to Defendant Peter Walton’ discussion about guns and shooting range. Katherine Amato could have spoke with Eugene White on 19th January 2009, that same day that she spoke with Defendant Peter Walton, but she waited until 21st January 2009. Case 1:12-cv-01223 Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 35 of 125
  36. 36. Page - 36 - of 125 222. Plaintiff believes that Katherine Amato waited till the time that Duke Administration that Plaintiff wouldn’t respond to Defendant Peter Walton’ discussion about guns and shooting range. 223. On 21st January 2009, in response to Katherine Amato’ enquiry, Eugene White recollected that the incident occurred in November 200838 and when Plaintiff and Eugene White are talking in the Duke Campus, Defendant Peter Walton joined them and asked Plaintiff that “Vamsi, you look like a hit man in that coat. Are you carrying a concealed weapon?". “In response, what appeared to be teasing comments started by Pete Walton, Vamsi in a very joking manner told to Peter Walton that he was carrying a concealed weapon inside the coat”. 224. Interestingly, Eugene White also didn’t disclose to Plaintiff that Katherine Amato called her and enquired about alleged complaint that Plaintiff bringing a weapon onto campus. 225. On 23rd January 2009, Plaintiff was interrogated by Bill Boulding, and during the interrogation, Bill Boulding characterized Plaintiff as a “as a risk” and compared Plaintiff with the Virginia Tech shooter that killed 32 people. 226. On 23rd January 2009, Plaintiff asked Bill Boulding why he is conveniently ignoring the fact that Plaintiff has been a target for the harassment by the defendants and ignoring the defendants who publicly discussed about the guns that they own and the size of the bullets 38 “I spoke with Eugene on Tuesday, about the conversation he participated in where Vamsi and Pete Walton discussed Vamsi carrying a pistol. Eugene's recollection was that the incident occurred in November, the weekend of Global graduation. The majority of the Weekend students were staying at the Washington Duke, but a small number of students (part of the Thursday night stay group) were staying in the Thomas Center. It was a per diem night and Eugene said he and Vamsi had just returned from eating at the noodle restaurant and were standing outside in the breezeway talking. While it was warm, it had been raining/threatening rain, so Vamsi had on a trench coat. When Pete came up to speak to them, he commented on Vamsi's coat, saying something along the lines of "Vamsi, you look like a hit man in that coat. Are you carrying a concealed weapon?" Vamsi responded, in what Eugene took to be a very joking manner, that he was carrying a concealed weapon inside the coat. Vamsi then went on to elaborate that he used to carry a pistol when he was in India. Eugene said that Vamsi repeated this statement on Saturday, still in a joking manner, that he was carrying a gun. Eugene feels very strongly that Vamsi was joking, in response to what appeared to be teasing comments started by Pete Walton. Eugene evidently knows Vamsi fairly well and indicated that because of the language and cultural differences between Vamsi and some of his classmates, he could he could see where someone would not understand that Vamsi was joking”. Case 1:12-cv-01223 Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 36 of 125
  37. 37. Page - 37 - of 125 that they like to use and how recently that they fired the guns; and could potentially pose more risk than Plaintiff. Nevertheless, Bill Boulding answer was vague and abrupt. 227. On 24th January 2009, the last day of the Term 3 and after Plaintiff has been interrogated by Bill Boulding, when Plaintiff walking towards the shuttle bus to airport, Defendant Moira Ringo purposefully approached Plaintiff and said that “this is the last trip for you to Durham, NC”. At that time, Plaintiff asked the Defendant Moira Ringo, “What you mean?” At that time, Defendant Moira Ringo response was vague, abrupt, and dismissive. 228. On 24th January 2009, to avoid Defendant Moira Ringo, Plaintiff jumped into Eugene White car and he took Plaintiff to a local Bar & Restaurant, where Plaintiff’ classmates usually hang- out. As soon, Plaintiff entering into the bar, Kevin Guisti approached Plaintiff and pulled off Plaintiff’ blazer and searched Plaintiff’ coat pockets and Kevin Guisti didn’t find a gun in Plaintiff’ coat pockets. 229. Immediately right at that moment, Douglas Bashar looking at Plaintiff and said that “He is lying” in front of the other classmates. At that time, Plaintiff stepped out of the Bar & Restaurant and called Douglas Bashar over phone and asked him, “Why do you think that I am lying?” However, Douglas Bashar was evasive and did not answer the Plaintiff’ question. 230. As soon as Term 3 final exams are over, In the first week of February 2009, Plaintiff asked Defendants Robert Ball, Robert Ross and Shana Keating to use Duke’ authorized software, because Defendants Robert Ball, Robert Ross and Shana Keating discarded all of the Plaintiff’ contributions by accusing Plaintiff plagiarized the course work and abused the non Duke software to record Plaintiff’ conversations. 231. Nevertheless, Defendants Robert Ball, Robert Ross and Shana Keating disregarded Plaintiff’ request and continue to discard Plaintiff’ contributions. At that time, Plaintiff suggested to discuss the team dynamics and to arrive an amicable solution to divide the work among the team members in the presence of Mark Brown. 232. Defendants Robert Ball, Robert Ross and Shana Keating refused to discuss with Mark Brown and continued to trash Plaintiff’ contributions. Case 1:12-cv-01223 Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 37 of 125
  38. 38. Page - 38 - of 125 233. On 22nd February 2009, Plaintiff contacted Mark Brown via email39 and copied his email to Defendants Robert Ball, Robert Ross and Shana Keating. In his email Plaintiff clearly told to Mark Brown he failed to resolve logistic and administrative issues through consensus within his team and need his intervention. 234. On 23rd February 2009, Defendant Shana Keating contacted Mark Brown without copying to Plaintiff and told him that she begun documenting her concerns along with Defendants Robert Ball and Robert Ross concerns, about Plaintiff’ contributions and performance and will send him a document after Defendants Robert Ball and Robert Ross agrees with her. 235. On 23rd February 2009, Defendant Shana Keating, Robert Ball and Robert Ross prepared six pages of atrocious lies with hatred abhorrence and abomination against Plaintiff saying that they don’t feel comfortable with Plaintiff’ quality of work and cited frivolous reasons for their discriminatory40 attitude towards Plaintiff and send to Mark Brown without copying Plaintiff. 39 “Dear Mark Brown, This is further to our last meeting during the beginning of Term #02, I am writing this email to setup some time to talk to you tomorrow (Monday, 22nd February 2008) or any other time convenient for you. Now I am in Term # 04 and in a different team. I could not able to resolve logistic and administrative issues through consensus within my team. The issues are: (1) Using Fuqua's platform and online team boards for communication (email and team meeting telephone calls) and storage of the documents. (2) Work division between the team members and leading the team assignments. (3) Communication process and approach for tackling each assignment. When it would be possible for you to have an initial conversation?” 40 “Hi Mark, This letter is being submitted to you by Robert Ross, Bobby Ball, and Shan a Keating. We are in Section 1, Team 2 of the 2009 Weekend EMBA program. Our team also includes Navneet Latawa and Vamsi Vurimindi; we do not speak on behalf of Navneet or Vamsi in this letter. We are writing to address some concerns we are having with our team dynamics. There is a disconnect between Vamsi Vurimindi and the rest of the team. We tried solving our issues by adhering to our initial team charter (attached). When that failed, we made some compromises and agreed upon a revised team charter (also attached). This did not work and now we are soliciting your help. The main points of conflict for Vamsi are (1) using Centra voice, (2) work roles/responsibilities of team members, and (3) date/time of team calls. However, we believe that these are minor issues on which we can compromise (and have done so in the revised team charter). However, the real underlying issues for the rest of the team are Vamsi's punctuality, work ethic, quality of work, and moral character. …. (4) Vamsi wants a team lead for each assignment … Bottom line: in our opinions, Vamsi as not a good team lead. This is not a judgment, but rather an observation. As a result, we decided to work together in a manner that draws upon our strengths, so we returned to the routine that worked before and that made the best use of everyone's skills. (1) As just discussed, Vamsi is inflexible and unwilling to compromise. If we do not proceed in the manner he desires, he complains or refuses to participate. At the beginning of Term 2, we established a loose team charter that has been reviewed at least two times since. We have met as a team to discuss these issues; we leave these meetings with a sense of consensus (usually with compromise) and Vamsi brings up issues again at a later date. He continues to re-open resolved issues Case 1:12-cv-01223 Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 38 of 125

×