January 31, 2025 • 32 mins
Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.
This episode is part of my initiative to provide access to important court decisions impacting employees in an easy to understand conversational format using AI. The speakers in the episode are AI generated and frankly sound great to listen to. Enjoy!
What happens when prestigious institutions prioritize reputation over accountability? This episode unravels the complex sexual harassment case at Yale University, centering on accusations against Dr. Manuel Lopes-Fontes by six women doctors. We peel back the layers of this case, exploring the intricate application of Title IX in an environment where medical residents are both students and employees. Discover the unsettling irony of Dr. Fontes's appointment as vice chair for diversity amid these serious allegations and the court's pivotal decision to extend Title IX protections to the workplace.
Witness the courage of individuals like Dr. Elturei and Dr. Castro, who risked their careers by confronting misconduct and facing retaliation. We spotlight the culture of silence that often envelops academia, questioning whether elite institutions like Yale truly value transparency and accountability. This episode delves into the broader cultural implications, challenging the traditional view of universities as safe havens and urging listeners to critically evaluate institutional priorities and the role of witnesses in fostering justice.
We delve into the importance of supporting survivors and the need for genuine institutional change to cultivate safe environments. By analyzing Yale's questionable decision to appoint Dr. Fontes to a diversity role, we reflect on the broader questions of institutional priorities and the gap between declared values and actual practices. Through these discussions, the episode calls for a collective effort to create a more just and equitable world, encouraging listeners to become advocates for change and support those who bravely speak out against injustice.
Show Notes:
Court Decision on Yale's Motion to Dismiss
If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States.
For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.
Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to the Deep Dive.
We've got quite the stack oflegal documents here today.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
Oh yeah.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
Yeah, a complaint, a court decision and a few news
articles.
Okay, all about a sexualharassment case at Yale.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Yale.
Wow, you wouldn't think an IvyLeague school would be caught up
in something like this.
Speaker 1 (00:19):
Right, and it's not just like a small thing either.
We're talking about six womendoctors who accused this leading
doctor, manuel Lopes-Fontes, ofserious sexual harassment.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
And they sued him, but also Yale University and
Yale New Haven Hospital.
Wow, now the case ended upsettling out of court.
But just the legal argumentsthemselves are fascinating.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
I bet.
Speaker 1 (00:41):
Plus there's that whole human impact to think
about how this affected everyoneinvolved.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
You know what I find interesting?
This whole case basicallyhinged on whether or not Title
IXX yeah, you know, the law weusually think of with college
sports applies to medicalresidents.
Speaker 1 (00:55):
Okay, see, now that is where it gets really
interesting, because they'reemployees, but UT they're also
still in training, so it's kindof tricky.
Speaker 2 (01:03):
Yeah, it's like a gray area.
Speaker 1 (01:04):
And get this.
While all these allegationswere going on, dr Fontes was
appointed vice chair fordiversity, equity and inclusion.
Speaker 2 (01:12):
Whoa talk about a head scratcher.
It really makes you think aboutthe disconnect between what an
institution says they value andthen how they actually act.
Speaker 1 (01:21):
Absolutely so.
Let's start with who thesewomen are the plaintiffs, yeah
and why this case is soimportant.
We're talking about Drs HeidiBuhls, mia Castro, ashley
Altaray, jodi-ann Oliver,lori-ann Oliver and Elizabeth
Reinhart.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (01:37):
They all held various positions at Yale, some
attending physicians, someresidents or fellows.
And it's worth noting that theOliver sisters are black right,
so that adds another layer.
Oh for sure we're not justtalking about gender here it's
the intersection of race andpower too, yeah.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
All within academia.
Speaker 1 (01:52):
Absolutely.
Now, these women didn't justlike throw around some vague
accusations.
They gave very specific anddisturbing details Inappropriate
touching, unwanted kissing,sexualized comments, you name it
.
Wow, they even claim that DrFontes retaliated against some
of them professionally.
Speaker 2 (02:08):
So this wasn't just rumors going around.
Speaker 1 (02:10):
No, not at all.
Speaker 2 (02:11):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (02:11):
The complaint lays out a pretty clear pattern of
behavior that's hard to justdismiss.
Speaker 2 (02:17):
Like what kind of specifics are we talking about?
Speaker 1 (02:19):
Well, there's the allegation that Dr Fontes
forcibly kissed Dr Bowles at acafe.
Speaker 2 (02:24):
Oh, wow.
Speaker 1 (02:26):
And another incident where he supposedly groped a
resident at a graduation partythat's awful one example that
really got to me was dr castro'sclaim that, after she rejected
dr fonte's advances, he made herpick up a drop syringe cap
instead of letting her help apatient wait what.
We're talking about a criticalmedical situation where every
second counts.
(02:47):
It's unbelievable it reallyhighlights those power dynamics.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
Oh, absolutely.
A resident trying to do her jobin a high pressure situation,
and then she gets humiliatedbecause she rejected her
superior's advances.
Speaker 1 (02:59):
Exactly, and the complaint doesn't just focus on
Dr Fontes either.
Speaker 2 (03:02):
Really.
Speaker 1 (03:02):
It paints Yale as an institution that has a history
of protecting powerful men.
Speaker 2 (03:06):
Oh, wow, so there's a pattern.
Speaker 1 (03:08):
It seems that way they point to past examples like
Dr Michael Simons.
He was found to have sexuallyharassed a researcher, but he
got to keep his leadershippositions.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
Oh, wow.
Speaker 1 (03:21):
Then there's Dr Eugene Richmond.
He was reprimanded forinappropriate behavior with
students back in 1994, but hewas still allowed to bring
students to his researchfacility in the Caribbean.
Speaker 2 (03:31):
Seriously, they just let that go on.
Speaker 1 (03:33):
Apparently.
Speaker 2 (03:34):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (03:34):
And let's not forget the survey results that are
cited in the complaint.
Right Yale seems to have muchhigher rates of sexual
harassment compared to otheruniversities.
That's disturbing much higherrates of sexual harassment
compared to other universities.
That's disturbing, it is.
It makes you think maybe theseelite schools care more about
protecting their reputation thanactually protecting the people
who work and study there.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
Yeah, I see your point, so this Title IX issue
becomes even more interesting.
Speaker 1 (03:56):
Oh, definitely.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
Because Yale New Haven Hospital actually tried to
say that Title IX didn't evenapply to them.
Speaker 1 (04:02):
Really.
Speaker 2 (04:03):
Yeah, because they claimed it's meant for
educational programs not foremployment.
Speaker 1 (04:07):
Which is kind of convenient considering how
closely tied the hospital is tothe Yale Medical School.
Speaker 2 (04:11):
Totally, but the judge didn't buy it.
Speaker 1 (04:13):
Well, that's good.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
Yeah, the judge pointed out that residents are
both employees and studentsRight Plus the hospital's own
policies, said employees shouldreport harassment through Yale.
Speaker 1 (04:23):
So that connection was pretty clear.
Speaker 2 (04:24):
Oh yeah, so it wasn't just a win for the plaintiffs,
it set a precedent.
Speaker 1 (04:28):
Oh, how so.
Speaker 2 (04:29):
Well, it showed how Title IX protection can reach
into the workplace.
Speaker 1 (04:33):
OK.
Speaker 2 (04:34):
Especially in places like teaching hospitals that are
closely linked to universities.
Speaker 1 (04:37):
That's huge.
Speaker 2 (04:38):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (04:39):
It seems like this case is just one small part of a
much bigger issue.
Speaker 2 (04:42):
Oh, absolutely.
The debate over whether TitleNIEX covers employees at schools
is still happening in courtsacross the country.
Speaker 1 (04:49):
So this is a really complex situation.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
It is.
It's like trying to figure outthis giant puzzle.
Speaker 1 (04:54):
OK, so let's dig into those retaliation claims a
little more.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
Good idea.
Retaliation can be tough toprove, but it's a real fear for
anyone who reports harassment.
Speaker 1 (05:06):
Absolutely.
Dr Elturei said she was bannedfrom working in the ICU after
reporting.
Speaker 2 (05:09):
Wow.
Speaker 1 (05:10):
And Dr Castro claimed Dr Fontes refused to support
her application for a missiontrip.
Speaker 2 (05:15):
Oh man.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
Which could have messed up her fellowship.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
That's awful.
It shows the risks victims face, even if they do speak up.
Speaker 1 (05:23):
Right, it's so hard to prove intent, especially with
subtle professional retaliation.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
It is.
And then there's that wholeirony of Dr Fontes being
appointed vice chair fordiversity, equity and inclusion
while this was all happening.
Speaker 1 (05:36):
Yeah, I know.
What do you make of that?
Was Yale trying to cover thingsup or were they just clueless?
Speaker 2 (05:42):
It's tough to say it could have been a PR move.
Speaker 1 (05:46):
Oh, you mean to look good.
Speaker 2 (05:47):
Right try to show everyone they're committed to
diversity, even though there's ascandal going on.
Speaker 1 (05:51):
I could see that, but it definitely backfired.
Speaker 2 (05:54):
Oh yeah, for sure.
It makes you wonder if maybethey were trying to sideline Dr
Fontes.
Speaker 1 (05:58):
Oh, you mean like giving him a title to keep him
busy with paperwork instead ofpatients?
Speaker 2 (06:02):
Yeah, exactly While the investigation was happening.
Speaker 1 (06:05):
That's an interesting take.
Speaker 2 (06:06):
It just shows, how complicated things can get.
Speaker 1 (06:09):
Right.
Nothing's ever black and whitein these situations.
Speaker 2 (06:12):
Absolutely.
There are so many layers to itall Personal agendas,
institutional politics it's alot to untangle.
Speaker 1 (06:18):
So in the end the case settled, but we don't know
the terms because it'sconfidential.
We don't know if there was anyfinancial compensation or
anything, but what we do know isthat three of the plaintiffs
ended up leaving Yale.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
Wow, that speaks volumes.
Even with a settlement, theirlives and careers were obviously
affected it really makes youthink about what justice looks
like in these cases.
It does.
So where did everyone end upafter the settlement?
Speaker 1 (06:45):
Well, Dr Fonda's medical license is currently
pending reinstatement.
Dr Elterai left Yale in 2022,and she's now an assistant
professor at UConn School ofMedicine.
Speaker 2 (06:53):
Got it.
Speaker 1 (06:54):
Dr Reinhart is teaching at the CS Mott
Children's Hospital at theUniversity of Michigan.
Speaker 2 (06:59):
So they both moved on .
Speaker 1 (07:00):
They did.
It's almost like their pathsdiverged after this shared
experience.
Speaker 2 (07:05):
Yeah, some chose to start fresh somewhere else and
others stayed at Yale hoping tosee things change from the
inside.
Speaker 1 (07:10):
That's a good point.
Yeah, and for those who stayedat Yale Dr Heidi Bowles is still
an assistant professor ofanesthesiology, and Dr Jodi-Ann
Oliver and Dr Lori-Ann Oliverare still working there as
anesthesiologists as well.
Speaker 2 (07:23):
So three out of the six stayed.
Speaker 1 (07:25):
That's right.
It's interesting to think aboutwhy they stayed.
Speaker 2 (07:28):
Right.
What would make them want tostay after everything that
happened?
Speaker 1 (07:32):
Yeah, maybe they saw some positive changes because of
their lawsuit.
Speaker 2 (07:35):
Maybe or maybe they felt a sense of duty to stay and
push for change from within.
Speaker 1 (07:40):
I could see that.
Speaker 2 (07:41):
Or maybe it was just practical.
You know they'd built theircareers at Yale.
Yeah, Leaving would mean losingyears of work and connections.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
Probably a bit of everything.
Speaker 2 (07:50):
Yeah, it's a tough call, but their choice to stay
does suggest a glimmer of hope.
Speaker 1 (07:55):
That things can get better.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
Exactly that.
Even after going throughsomething so awful, people can
choose to stay and fight forwhat they believe in.
Speaker 1 (08:02):
You know, before we move on, I wanted to mention
something we talked aboutearlier.
Oh yeah, About Dr Fontes beingappointed vice chair for
diversity, equity and inclusionwhile all of this was going on.
Speaker 2 (08:12):
Right.
It was such a strange decision.
How could they put someoneaccused of this kind of
harassment in a position that'ssupposed to be about inclusivity
and safety?
Speaker 1 (08:21):
It did seem like a major PR blunder.
Speaker 2 (08:23):
It was.
It makes you question howserious Yale was about these
allegations.
Were they trying to sweep itall under the rug, or was there
something else going on?
Speaker 1 (08:33):
Earlier you were saying maybe they were trying to
sideline Dr Fontes.
Speaker 2 (08:36):
Yeah, maybe give him more paperwork to do and less
patient contact while theyinvestigated.
Speaker 1 (08:41):
That's a possibility.
But even if that's true, itstill looks really bad.
Speaker 2 (08:45):
Oh for sure.
It just shows how institutions,even prestigious ones, can
prioritize their own interestsover the well-being of their
people.
Speaker 1 (08:52):
This case has definitely revealed some
interesting legal wrinkles,especially with how Title IX
applies.
Speaker 2 (08:57):
Oh yeah, Usually we think of Title IXs in terms of
college sports.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
Right, making sure things are fair for men and
women.
Speaker 2 (09:04):
But this case kind of pushed the boundaries of that.
Speaker 1 (09:06):
Totally Remember how Yale New Haven Hospital said
Title IXs didn't apply to them.
Speaker 2 (09:10):
Yeah, they said it's for educational programs, not
for employment.
Speaker 1 (09:13):
Right, but the judge disagreed.
Speaker 2 (09:16):
Yeah, the judge said that the residency program is
closely tied to the medicalschool.
Speaker 1 (09:20):
So it was more than just an employment situation.
Speaker 2 (09:23):
Exactly.
The judge pointed out thatresidents are both employees,
A&D students.
Speaker 1 (09:28):
Makes sense.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
And the hospital's own policies said to report
harassment through Yale.
Speaker 1 (09:33):
So that connection was pretty clear.
Speaker 2 (09:35):
Oh yeah, so this ruling was a win for the
plaintiffs, because it showedthat Title IX can protect people
in the workplace too.
Speaker 1 (09:42):
At least in places like teaching hospitals that are
linked to universities.
Speaker 2 (09:46):
Right, but this whole debate about whether Title IX
covers employees at educationalinstitutions is still ongoing.
Speaker 1 (09:54):
Wow.
So it's a really evolving areaof the law.
Speaker 2 (09:56):
It is.
This case is just one smallpiece of a much bigger
conversation about how toprevent and address harassment.
Speaker 1 (10:03):
OK, so we've talked about the accusations, the legal
battle, the whole culture atYale.
Speaker 2 (10:09):
Right.
Speaker 1 (10:09):
But we can't forget about the lasting impact on the
plaintiffs and their careers.
Speaker 2 (10:13):
You're so right.
It's easy to get caught up inthe legal stuff and forget that
there are real people whoselives were affected.
Speaker 1 (10:18):
Absolutely.
Three of them chose to leaveYale and three decided to stay.
Speaker 2 (10:23):
Yeah, that's a pretty stark difference.
What do you think it says abouttheir experiences?
Speaker 1 (10:29):
I think it shows how different people cope with
trauma and how they view theinstitution itself.
Speaker 2 (10:34):
That's a good point.
Maybe those who left felt likethey needed a clean break.
Speaker 1 (10:39):
Yeah, like leaving was the only way to truly move
on.
Speaker 2 (10:42):
Maybe they just didn't trust Yale to change.
Speaker 1 (10:44):
And those who stayed.
Maybe they felt like they couldbe part of making things better
.
Speaker 2 (10:47):
Right, or maybe they had strong ties to Yale and
leaving felt impossible.
Speaker 1 (10:51):
Probably a mix of all those things.
Speaker 2 (10:53):
Definitely it's a complex decision with no easy
answers.
Speaker 1 (10:56):
So we've covered a lot, but this is just the tip of
the iceberg.
We've still got a lot to unpack.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
We do, and as we continue our deep dive, I hope
we can go beyond just whathappened and really explore the
deeper questions, you know, thebig picture stuff that makes
this case so important.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
I'm with you.
Let's take a closer look atsome of the specific allegations
against Dr Fontes.
Speaker 2 (11:18):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (11:18):
What were some of the common themes that stood out to
you?
Speaker 2 (11:21):
Honestly, one of the first things I noticed was the
variety of places where thealleged harassment happened.
It wasn't just at the hospitalor on campus.
Speaker 1 (11:28):
You're right, we're talking about professional
dinners, conferences, even acafe meeting.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
Yeah, it really shows how this behavior can creep
into all sorts of situationsthat seem harmless at first.
Speaker 1 (11:39):
It makes it so much harder for victims to figure out
what's appropriate and what'snot.
Speaker 2 (11:44):
Especially when it's someone with authority.
Exactly yeah.
Speaker 1 (11:47):
Like in Dr Jodi Ann Oliver's case, when she reported
Dr Fonta's inappropriatetouching to the division chief,
she was told he was just beinghandsy and affectionate because
of his heritage.
Speaker 2 (11:56):
Oh wow, so they just dismissed it.
Speaker 1 (11:58):
Basically Right.
They brushed it off as culturaldifferences.
Speaker 2 (12:02):
That's so minimizing.
It basically tells the victimthat their feelings don't matter
.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
Exactly, and it protects the perpetrator.
Speaker 2 (12:08):
And it perpetuates that culture where harassment is
just accepted.
Speaker 1 (12:11):
Right.
It makes you wonder if thedivision chief really believed
that or if they were just tryingto avoid dealing with the
problem.
Speaker 2 (12:17):
It's a good question and it points to how even subtle
forms of complicity can createa really harmful environment.
Speaker 1 (12:24):
So the complaint outlines this pattern of
escalation in Dr Fontes'behavior.
Speaker 2 (12:29):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (12:29):
It starts with inappropriate comments, then
moves to unwanted touching andeventually leads to forced
kissing and groping.
Speaker 2 (12:36):
Yeah, that's not just being handsy anymore, that's
crossing a serious line.
Speaker 1 (12:40):
Right.
It's a violation of personalboundaries and a clear abuse of
power.
Speaker 2 (12:43):
Absolutely.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
For example, the complaint says Dr Fontes groped
a resident at a graduation party.
Speaker 2 (12:50):
Oh God.
Speaker 1 (12:51):
He forcibly kissed Dr Bowles at a cafe and he even
forced his tongue down Dr LarryAnn Oliver's throat at a dinner
where he'd already forciblykissed her sister, Dr Jodi Ann
Oliver.
Speaker 2 (13:02):
That's awful, and the fact that some of this
supposedly happened in publicplaces, with people around, is
just unbelievable.
Speaker 1 (13:08):
It does make you wonder why no one intervened.
Speaker 2 (13:10):
Right?
Were they afraid to saysomething?
Did they not realize howserious it was?
Speaker 1 (13:14):
Or was there just this culture of silence where
everyone looked the other way?
Speaker 2 (13:18):
It's hard to say without knowing more about those
specific situations, but itdoes show how complicated these
dynamics can be.
Speaker 1 (13:25):
There are so many things that can contribute to a
culture of harassment.
Speaker 2 (13:29):
Yeah, like fear of retaliation or feeling loyal to
the person or just not wantingto get involved in something
that makes you uncomfortable.
Speaker 1 (13:37):
So let's talk about the alleged retaliation that
some of the plaintiffsexperienced after reporting.
Speaker 2 (13:42):
Okay, retaliation can be really insidious.
It can be anything from subtlesnubs to being excluded from
opportunities, or even gettingdemoted or fired.
Speaker 1 (13:53):
In this case, Dr Elturei claimed she was banned
from working in the ICU Wow.
And Dr Castro said Dr Fonteswouldn't support her application
for a mission trip.
Speaker 2 (14:01):
Which could have hurt her fellowship.
Speaker 1 (14:03):
Exactly.
These are serious allegations.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
They are.
Imagine being a residentalready in such a vulnerable
position, yeah and then facingconsequences like that for
speaking up.
It sends such a terriblemessage to other victims.
Speaker 1 (14:16):
It's like they're being punished for doing the
right thing.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
And that's a big reason why so many people stay
silent.
Speaker 1 (14:21):
They're afraid of the consequences.
Speaker 2 (14:23):
Right.
And then there's the wholething with Yale appointing Dr
Fontes as vice chair fordiversity, equity and inclusion
while all this was going on.
Speaker 1 (14:32):
I know it's mind boggling.
What were they thinking?
Speaker 2 (14:35):
It's hard to say.
It just seems so tone deaf toappoint someone accused of
sexual harassment to theposition that's supposed to be
about creating a safe andinclusive environment.
Speaker 1 (14:45):
It does make you question their judgment.
Speaker 2 (14:47):
Totally, but maybe they were trying to manage the
situation internally.
Speaker 1 (14:51):
You mean, like, give him a different role to minimize
the damage?
Speaker 2 (14:54):
Right.
Maybe they thought they couldcontrol the situation better if
he was in a more administrativerole.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
That's an interesting theory, but it definitely
didn't look good from theoutside.
Speaker 2 (15:03):
Oh no, not at all.
It just adds to the wholeperception that they were more
concerned with protecting theirreputation than addressing the
problem.
Speaker 1 (15:10):
This case has also brought up some really
interesting legal points abouthow Title IX is applied.
Speaker 2 (15:14):
Yeah, we usually think of Title IXs in terms of
college sports and making suremen and women have equal
opportunities, but this casereally pushed the boundaries of
that.
Speaker 1 (15:23):
Remember Yale New Haven Hospital tried to argue
that they weren't subject totitle niax because it's meant
for educational programs, notemployment.
Speaker 2 (15:33):
Yeah, they were basically saying that medical
residents are primarilyemployees, not students.
Speaker 1 (15:38):
Which is a clever argument, considering they're
kind of both.
Speaker 2 (15:41):
Totally, but the judge didn't buy it.
Speaker 1 (15:43):
Well, that's good.
Speaker 2 (15:44):
Yeah, the judge emphasized how closely connected
the residency program is to themedical school.
Speaker 1 (15:50):
So it was more than just a simple employment
situation.
Speaker 2 (15:53):
Right, it was about the educational aspect too.
The judge even pointed out thatthe hospital's own policy is
said to report harassmentthrough Yale.
Speaker 1 (16:00):
So the lines were blurred.
Speaker 2 (16:02):
For sure, and that's what makes this ruling so
significant.
It expands the reach of TitleIX protections into the
workplace, at least in settingsthat are closely tied to
educational institutions.
Speaker 1 (16:12):
That's a big deal.
It feels like we're witnessinga shift in how these laws are
being interpreted.
Speaker 2 (16:16):
We are.
It's all about adapting tothese changing workplace
dynamics.
Speaker 1 (16:21):
Okay.
So to wrap up this part of ourdeep dive, what are your main
takeaways so far?
What stands out to you?
Speaker 2 (16:25):
Honestly, what gets me is how much courage it took
for these plaintiffs to comeforward.
They knew they were riskingtheir careers, their reputations
, everything.
Speaker 1 (16:33):
It's true, they were going up against a powerful
institution and a powerful man.
Speaker 2 (16:37):
Exactly, and that's why this case is so important.
It shows that, even in the faceof immense pressure, people can
still choose to speak truth topower.
Speaker 1 (16:46):
And it highlights how crucial it is to support
survivors of harassment.
We need to create a culturewhere people feel safe coming
forward, knowing they'll bebelieved and supported.
Speaker 2 (16:56):
Absolutely.
We need to move beyond justacknowledging the problem and
start actively working towardssolutions.
Speaker 1 (17:01):
That means holding institutions accountable for
creating a safe and equitableenvironment.
Speaker 2 (17:05):
Exactly, and that includes having clear policies
against harassment,investigating complaints
thoroughly and taking realaction against those who are
responsible.
Speaker 1 (17:15):
This first part of our deep dive has been a real
eye-opener.
Speaker 2 (17:18):
It has.
We've seen how power dynamicscan be abused, even in
institutions that are supposedto be dedicated to knowledge and
progress.
Speaker 1 (17:25):
It's a reminder that harassment can happen anywhere
and that it takes all of us tocreate a culture of respect and
accountability.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
Couldn't agree more.
Picking up where we left offlast time, let's think about
what happened after thesettlement.
Okay, remember, three of thosewomen decided to leave Yale
altogether.
Speaker 1 (17:42):
It makes you wonder like what was it about the
environment there that madeleaving seem like the only
option?
Speaker 2 (17:49):
Yeah, did they just not believe anything would
actually change.
Speaker 1 (17:53):
It's possible.
Maybe they felt disillusionedby the whole process.
Speaker 2 (17:56):
Yeah, even with the settlement, maybe they felt like
justice hadn't really beenserved.
Speaker 1 (17:59):
Right, or that Yale wouldn't really commit to
changing things.
Speaker 2 (18:03):
Yeah, it must have been a tough decision for them.
They were successful doctorswith established careers at a
prestigious institution.
Speaker 1 (18:10):
Absolutely.
Starting over somewhere new isnever easy.
Speaker 2 (18:13):
It really shows how deeply these experiences can
affect you, both professionallyand personally.
Speaker 1 (18:18):
For sure, sometimes you need a fresh start just to
heal and rebuild.
Speaker 2 (18:22):
Exactly.
Speaker 1 (18:22):
So specifically Dr Elturai.
She's now an assistantprofessor at UConn School of
Medicine.
She left Yale back in 2022,right in the middle of all of
this.
Speaker 2 (18:32):
It's a good reminder that these legal cases can drag
on for years.
Speaker 1 (18:36):
Oh yeah.
Speaker 2 (18:37):
Imagine trying to focus on your career, your
patients, your research, withthis whole thing hanging over
you.
It's got to be incrediblystressful it is being a doctor
is hard enough without all thatadded pressure.
Speaker 1 (18:48):
Dr Reinhart also moved on.
She's teaching at the CS MockChildren's Hospital at the
University of Michigan now.
Speaker 2 (18:54):
OK.
Speaker 1 (18:54):
Michigan's a great school too.
Speaker 2 (18:55):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (18:56):
It seems like both Dr Altarai and Dr Reinhart landed
on their feet.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
Yeah, they did.
They're both talented doctorsand clearly resilient.
Speaker 1 (19:05):
But we can't forget about the emotional toll this
must have taken.
Speaker 2 (19:09):
Oh, of course not.
Even if they're doing well intheir new jobs, they still had
to uproot their lives, leavebehind colleagues and friends
and start over.
Speaker 1 (19:16):
It's a huge change.
So what about the plaintiffswho stayed at Yale?
What was their experience like?
Speaker 2 (19:22):
Yeah, did they see any real changes after the
settlement?
Speaker 1 (19:24):
That's the big question, isn't it?
It's hard to know what happenedbehind the scenes.
We do know that Dr Heidi Bowlesis still an assistant professor
of anesthesiology there.
Speaker 2 (19:33):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (19:34):
And Dr Jodi-Ann Oliver and Dr Lori-Ann Oliver.
They're also still working asanesthesiologists at Yale.
Speaker 2 (19:41):
So three out of the six original plaintiffs are
still there.
Speaker 1 (19:44):
Yeah, it's interesting to think about.
Speaker 2 (19:46):
It is.
What do you think it means?
Speaker 1 (19:48):
Maybe they saw some positive changes happen at Yale
because of the lawsuit.
Speaker 2 (19:52):
That's possible.
Or maybe they just felt likethey had a responsibility to
stay and advocate for changefrom within.
Speaker 1 (19:59):
Yeah, maybe they felt like leaving wouldn't solve
anything.
Speaker 2 (20:01):
Could also be a practical thing.
You know, They'd built theircareers at Yale.
Speaker 1 (20:05):
Right.
Speaker 2 (20:06):
Leaving would mean giving up a lot.
Speaker 1 (20:07):
It's probably a mix of all those factors.
Speaker 2 (20:09):
Probably, but choosing to stay suggests a
certain amount of hope.
You know like they believethings could get better.
Speaker 1 (20:16):
You know I keep thinking about that whole thing,
with Dr Fontes being appointedvice chair for diversity, equity
and inclusion while theseallegations were still pending.
Speaker 2 (20:24):
Oh yeah, that was bizarre.
How do you even make sense ofthat?
Speaker 1 (20:27):
I know it's like they completely missed the point.
Speaker 2 (20:34):
Like how can someone accused of such serious
harassment be put in charge ofpromoting inclusivity and safety
?
It just doesn't add up.
Speaker 1 (20:38):
It was a PR disaster waiting to happen.
Speaker 2 (20:40):
It was.
It really makes you questionwhat Yale was thinking.
Were they just trying to sweepit all under the rug or what?
I remember you saying earlierthat maybe it was a way to
sideline Dr Fontes.
Yeah, maybe give him adifferent role so he wasn't
interacting with patients asmuch while they were
investigating.
Speaker 1 (20:55):
Yeah, that's possible .
But even if that's true, itstill looks really bad oh
totally.
Speaker 2 (21:00):
It just reinforces this idea that they cared more
about protecting their own imagethan addressing the problem.
Speaker 1 (21:06):
Let's talk about the legal side of this for a minute,
especially that whole debateabout Title IX.
Speaker 2 (21:10):
Okay, yeah, that was a big part of the case.
Remember how Yale New HavenHospital tried to argue that
Title IX didn't even apply tothem.
Speaker 1 (21:17):
Yeah, they said it's meant for educational programs,
not employment.
Speaker 2 (21:21):
Exactly and since medical residents are employees
of the hospital, they claimedthey were exempt.
Speaker 1 (21:27):
It was a clever argument.
I'll give them that it reallyhighlighted that gray area
between education and employment.
Speaker 2 (21:33):
Yeah, especially in a teaching hospital where
residents are kind of bothstudents and employees.
Speaker 1 (21:38):
Right, but the judge didn't agree.
Speaker 2 (21:40):
No, the judge said that the residency program is
too closely tied to the medicalschool to make that distinction.
Speaker 1 (21:46):
The judge's reasoning was really interesting it was.
Speaker 2 (21:49):
They basically said that residents are both
employees and students and thatthe hospital's own policies
directed employees to reportharassment through Yale.
Speaker 1 (21:59):
So there was no separating the two.
Speaker 2 (22:00):
Exactly, and that's what makes this ruling so
important.
It shows that Title IXs canprotect people in the workplace
too.
Speaker 1 (22:07):
Especially in settings that are closely
connected to educationalinstitutions.
Speaker 2 (22:11):
Right, but it's important to remember that this
whole issue of whether Title IXapplies to employees at schools
is still being debated in courtsall over the country.
Speaker 1 (22:20):
So this case is just one piece of a much bigger
puzzle.
Speaker 2 (22:24):
It is and it shows how the law is constantly trying
to catch up with changingsocial norms and workplace
dynamics.
Speaker 1 (22:30):
Let's zoom out a bit and think about the bigger
picture.
What does this case tell usabout the culture of harassment
in academia in general?
Speaker 2 (22:37):
That's a good question.
We tend to think ofuniversities as these places of
higher learning where thingslike harassment wouldn't happen.
Speaker 1 (22:46):
Right, like they're supposed to be above that.
Speaker 2 (22:47):
Exactly, but, as we've seen, even the most
prestigious schools can have aculture of silence where
harassment is allowed to thrive.
Speaker 1 (22:55):
And it's not just Yale.
The complaint mentioned otherexamples of alleged harassment
there.
Speaker 2 (23:01):
Oh right, Like the cases of Dr Michael Simons and
Dr Eugene Richman.
Speaker 1 (23:05):
Yeah, they were both found to have engaged in
harassment, but they werebasically protected by the
institution.
Speaker 2 (23:11):
And then there's the survey data that shows higher
rates of harassment at Yalecompared to other universities.
Speaker 1 (23:16):
Right, it makes you wonder if Yale was really
committed to addressing theproblem or if they were more
concerned with protecting theirreputation and the powerful
people within the institution.
Speaker 2 (23:27):
It's a tough question , but it's an important one.
We need to hold institutionsaccountable for creating a safe
environment for everyone.
Speaker 1 (23:33):
Absolutely.
This deep dive has reallyhighlighted how institutions
handle or sometimes mishandlethese sensitive issues.
Speaker 2 (23:41):
It has.
So, before we move on, what aresome of the key takeaways you'd
like to emphasize?
Speaker 1 (23:46):
I think one of the biggest lessons here is the
importance of speaking up.
If you see something wrong, youhave to say something.
Speaker 2 (23:53):
Oh, absolutely.
It's not always easy,especially if you're worried
about retaliation or causingtrouble.
Speaker 1 (23:59):
But staying silent only protects the people who are
doing the harassing.
Speaker 2 (24:02):
Exactly.
We need to create a culturewhere victims feel safe coming
forward and where bystandersfeel empowered to intervene.
Speaker 1 (24:11):
I also think this case shows the need for more
transparency and accountabilitywithin institutions.
Confidential settlements mightbe the norm, but they can also
shield institutions from realscrutiny.
Speaker 2 (24:22):
That's true.
On the one hand, you want toprotect the privacy of the
individuals involved.
Speaker 1 (24:27):
Right.
Speaker 2 (24:27):
But on the other hand , that secrecy can make it hard
to know if any real changes arebeing made.
Speaker 1 (24:32):
And it can create the impression that institutions
are more concerned withprotecting their own reputation
than with truly addressing theproblem.
Speaker 2 (24:38):
It's a tough balance to strike.
This whole deep dive has beenreally thought-provoking.
Speaker 1 (24:42):
It has.
It's made me think about howcomplex this issue of sexual
harassment is and how much workwe still have to do to create a
truly just and equitable society.
Speaker 2 (24:54):
Couldn't agree more.
So what are some of the bigquestions we should be asking
ourselves as we move forward?
Speaker 1 (25:00):
Well, I think one of the most important questions is
how do we create a culture wherevictims feel safe speaking up?
Speaker 2 (25:05):
Yeah, knowing that they'll be believed and
supported and not punished forcoming forward.
Speaker 1 (25:11):
It's about building trust and creating an
environment where everyone feelsrespected.
Speaker 2 (25:15):
Exactly, and it's about holding institutions
accountable, making sure theyhave clear policies against
harassment and that theyactually enforce them.
And providing resources andsupport for victims.
Absolutely, we need to movebeyond just talking about the
problem and actually startimplementing real solutions.
Speaker 1 (25:32):
So we've covered a lot of ground in this second
part of our deep dive.
Speaker 2 (25:34):
We have.
We've looked at what happenedafter the settlement, the impact
on the plaintiffs, the legalarguments, the bigger picture of
harassment and academia.
Speaker 1 (25:43):
But there's one piece of the puzzle we haven't talked
about yet.
Speaker 2 (25:45):
Oh yeah, what's that?
Speaker 1 (25:47):
What about Dr Fontes?
What happened to him?
Speaker 2 (25:49):
You're right, we've talked about the women who came
forward, but what about the manwho was accused?
Speaker 1 (25:54):
Is he back practicing medicine?
Did he face any consequencesbeyond the lawsuit?
Speaker 2 (26:00):
These are important questions.
We need to know what happenedto him to fully understand the
scope of this case.
Speaker 1 (26:06):
So let's shift our focus to Dr Fontes in the final
part of our deep dive.
Speaker 2 (26:09):
OK, I'm ready to find out what happened to him.
Speaker 1 (26:11):
Join us for the final part, as we wrap up this
complex case and explore what itall means for the fight against
sexual harassment.
Speaker 2 (26:20):
OK, so we've talked about the plaintiffs, the
allegations against Dr Fontes,the legal battles and the
culture at Yale.
But what about Dr Fonteshimself?
Speaker 1 (26:30):
Right, we've discussed the impact on the
women, but what aboutconsequences for him?
You know the accused, yeah,Good point.
Speaker 2 (26:36):
According to those news articles, his medical
license was still pendingreinstatement as of 2021.
Speaker 1 (26:41):
So four years after the lawsuit was filed.
Speaker 2 (26:43):
Exactly.
It's a long time to be in limboprofessionally.
It is Makes you wonder whatthat process was like for him
and what the medical board waslooking for, you know, to decide
if he could practice again.
Speaker 1 (26:55):
It's interesting the articles don't really say if
there were any restrictions orconditions attached to his
license.
Speaker 2 (27:00):
Oh, so we don't know if he had to do extra training
or evaluations or anything likethat.
Speaker 1 (27:04):
Right, it's possible.
All those details areconfidential.
Speaker 2 (27:07):
Ah, that makes sense.
Speaker 1 (27:08):
Which brings us back to that whole issue of
transparency.
Speaker 2 (27:11):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (27:12):
On one hand, you want to protect people's privacy,
but on the other hand, this lackof information is frustrating.
Speaker 2 (27:18):
Especially for those who want to see accountability
Exactly yeah.
Speaker 1 (27:21):
It's a tough balance, yeah, and it reminds me of
something we've talked about alot in this deep dive.
Speaker 2 (27:25):
What's that?
Speaker 1 (27:26):
That tension between protecting individuals and
making sure institutions aretransparent.
Speaker 2 (27:31):
Right, and we saw that with the confidential
settlement too.
Speaker 1 (27:34):
Yeah, it's common practice, but it can feel like
it shields institutions fromhaving to answer for their
actions.
Speaker 2 (27:41):
It makes it harder to know if they actually made any
changes to prevent this fromhappening again.
Speaker 1 (27:46):
You know, something that really stuck with me from
the complaint was how theycompare this case to other
instances of alleged harassmentat Yale.
Speaker 2 (27:55):
Oh yeah, you mean the cases with Dr Michael Simons
and Dr Eugene Richmond.
Speaker 1 (27:59):
Those are the ones.
It makes it seem like Yale hasthis pattern of protecting
powerful men, even when they'vebeen accused of harassment.
Speaker 2 (28:07):
It's hard to ignore that pattern, especially with
those survey results showinghigher rates of sexual
harassment at Yale.
Speaker 1 (28:13):
Right.
It makes you wonder if this wasjust a few bad apples or if
there's a deeper problem, aculture that allows this to
happen.
Speaker 2 (28:19):
That's the big question, is it?
And it's something we see ininstitutions all over the place,
not just at Yale.
Speaker 1 (28:25):
It feels like there's a reluctance to really dig into
the root causes of harassment.
Speaker 2 (28:29):
Yeah, maybe because it would mean changing some
pretty entrenched powerstructures.
Speaker 1 (28:33):
It's easier to focus on individual bad actors than to
address the system itself.
Speaker 2 (28:37):
So much easier.
So what are some of the bigtakeaways from this whole deep
dive into the case at Yale?
What have we learned about thefight against sexual harassment?
Speaker 1 (28:47):
I think one of the most important lessons is the
power of collective action.
You know, these plaintiffsmight not have accomplished as
much if they hadn't cometogether.
Speaker 2 (28:55):
Right, there's strength in numbers.
Speaker 1 (28:57):
Absolutely, and it sends a message that this
behavior won't be tolerated.
Speaker 2 (29:01):
And it also highlights how important it is
to support survivors.
These women face so muchpressure for coming forward.
Speaker 1 (29:08):
They were incredibly brave.
Speaker 2 (29:09):
They were.
They needed a lot of support toget through all of that.
Speaker 1 (29:12):
And that support can come from so many places
Colleagues, friends, family,advocacy groups, lawyers it
takes a village.
Speaker 2 (29:21):
You're so right.
I think another key takeaway isthat institutions need to be
held accountable.
Speaker 1 (29:26):
Yeah, it's not enough to just have policies on paper.
Speaker 2 (29:29):
No, they need to actually enforce those policies,
investigate complaintsthoroughly and take action
against people who engage inharassment.
Speaker 1 (29:37):
And not just a slap on the wrist either.
The consequences need to fitthe offense.
Speaker 2 (29:41):
Exactly.
It has to send a message thatthis behavior won't be tolerated
.
Speaker 1 (29:45):
We also can't forget about the role of witnesses.
Speaker 2 (29:47):
Oh, that's so important.
Speaker 1 (29:48):
We all have a responsibility to speak up if we
see something wrong.
Speaker 2 (29:52):
Whether it's challenging inappropriate
behavior or supporting someonewho's been harassed, we can't
just stand by and do nothing.
Speaker 1 (29:58):
Silence only makes the problem worse.
Speaker 2 (30:01):
Wow, this deep dive has been quite a journey.
Speaker 1 (30:04):
It has.
We started with these legaldocuments and ended up exploring
power dynamics, institutionalculture and the really personal
stories at the heart of thiscase.
Speaker 2 (30:14):
It's been eye-opening for sure.
It's clear that evenprestigious institutions can be
part of the problem.
Speaker 1 (30:19):
And that seeking justice can be a long and
complicated process.
Speaker 2 (30:23):
It is, but we've also seen the courage of the women
who came forward and the impactthey had on Yale and hopefully
on the wider conversation aboutharassment.
Speaker 1 (30:32):
I hope this deep dive has encouraged everyone
listening to think criticallyabout these issues and to
consider how they can helpcreate a more just and equitable
world.
Speaker 2 (30:40):
Me too.
Whether it's speaking upsupporting survivors or
advocating for change, we allhave a role to play.
Speaker 1 (30:46):
Thanks for joining us on this deep dive.
Until next time, keep askingquestions, keep learning and
keep pushing for a better world.
Welcome to the Deep Dive.
We've got quite the stack oflegal documents here today.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
Oh yeah.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
Yeah, a complaint, a court decision and a few news
articles.
Okay, all about a sexualharassment case at Yale.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Yale.
Wow, you wouldn't think an IvyLeague school would be caught up
in something like this.
Speaker 1 (00:19):
Right, and it's not just like a small thing either.
We're talking about six womendoctors who accused this leading
doctor, manuel Lopes-Fontes, ofserious sexual harassment.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
And they sued him, but also Yale University and
Yale New Haven Hospital.
Wow, now the case ended upsettling out of court.
But just the legal argumentsthemselves are fascinating.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
I bet.
Speaker 1 (00:41):
Plus there's that whole human impact to think
about how this affected everyoneinvolved.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
You know what I find interesting?
This whole case basicallyhinged on whether or not Title
IXX yeah, you know, the law weusually think of with college
sports applies to medicalresidents.
Speaker 1 (00:55):
Okay, see, now that is where it gets really
interesting, because they'reemployees, but UT they're also
still in training, so it's kindof tricky.
Speaker 2 (01:03):
Yeah, it's like a gray area.
Speaker 1 (01:04):
And get this.
While all these allegationswere going on, dr Fontes was
appointed vice chair fordiversity, equity and inclusion.
Speaker 2 (01:12):
Whoa talk about a head scratcher.
It really makes you think aboutthe disconnect between what an
institution says they value andthen how they actually act.
Speaker 1 (01:21):
Absolutely so.
Let's start with who thesewomen are the plaintiffs, yeah
and why this case is soimportant.
We're talking about Drs HeidiBuhls, mia Castro, ashley
Altaray, jodi-ann Oliver,lori-ann Oliver and Elizabeth
Reinhart.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (01:37):
They all held various positions at Yale, some
attending physicians, someresidents or fellows.
And it's worth noting that theOliver sisters are black right,
so that adds another layer.
Oh for sure we're not justtalking about gender here it's
the intersection of race andpower too, yeah.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
All within academia.
Speaker 1 (01:52):
Absolutely.
Now, these women didn't justlike throw around some vague
accusations.
They gave very specific anddisturbing details Inappropriate
touching, unwanted kissing,sexualized comments, you name it
.
Wow, they even claim that DrFontes retaliated against some
of them professionally.
Speaker 2 (02:08):
So this wasn't just rumors going around.
Speaker 1 (02:10):
No, not at all.
Speaker 2 (02:11):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (02:11):
The complaint lays out a pretty clear pattern of
behavior that's hard to justdismiss.
Speaker 2 (02:17):
Like what kind of specifics are we talking about?
Speaker 1 (02:19):
Well, there's the allegation that Dr Fontes
forcibly kissed Dr Bowles at acafe.
Speaker 2 (02:24):
Oh, wow.
Speaker 1 (02:26):
And another incident where he supposedly groped a
resident at a graduation partythat's awful one example that
really got to me was dr castro'sclaim that, after she rejected
dr fonte's advances, he made herpick up a drop syringe cap
instead of letting her help apatient wait what.
We're talking about a criticalmedical situation where every
second counts.
(02:47):
It's unbelievable it reallyhighlights those power dynamics.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
Oh, absolutely.
A resident trying to do her jobin a high pressure situation,
and then she gets humiliatedbecause she rejected her
superior's advances.
Speaker 1 (02:59):
Exactly, and the complaint doesn't just focus on
Dr Fontes either.
Speaker 2 (03:02):
Really.
Speaker 1 (03:02):
It paints Yale as an institution that has a history
of protecting powerful men.
Speaker 2 (03:06):
Oh, wow, so there's a pattern.
Speaker 1 (03:08):
It seems that way they point to past examples like
Dr Michael Simons.
He was found to have sexuallyharassed a researcher, but he
got to keep his leadershippositions.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
Oh, wow.
Speaker 1 (03:21):
Then there's Dr Eugene Richmond.
He was reprimanded forinappropriate behavior with
students back in 1994, but hewas still allowed to bring
students to his researchfacility in the Caribbean.
Speaker 2 (03:31):
Seriously, they just let that go on.
Speaker 1 (03:33):
Apparently.
Speaker 2 (03:34):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (03:34):
And let's not forget the survey results that are
cited in the complaint.
Right Yale seems to have muchhigher rates of sexual
harassment compared to otheruniversities.
That's disturbing much higherrates of sexual harassment
compared to other universities.
That's disturbing, it is.
It makes you think maybe theseelite schools care more about
protecting their reputation thanactually protecting the people
who work and study there.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
Yeah, I see your point, so this Title IX issue
becomes even more interesting.
Speaker 1 (03:56):
Oh, definitely.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
Because Yale New Haven Hospital actually tried to
say that Title IX didn't evenapply to them.
Speaker 1 (04:02):
Really.
Speaker 2 (04:03):
Yeah, because they claimed it's meant for
educational programs not foremployment.
Speaker 1 (04:07):
Which is kind of convenient considering how
closely tied the hospital is tothe Yale Medical School.
Speaker 2 (04:11):
Totally, but the judge didn't buy it.
Speaker 1 (04:13):
Well, that's good.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
Yeah, the judge pointed out that residents are
both employees and studentsRight Plus the hospital's own
policies, said employees shouldreport harassment through Yale.
Speaker 1 (04:23):
So that connection was pretty clear.
Speaker 2 (04:24):
Oh yeah, so it wasn't just a win for the plaintiffs,
it set a precedent.
Speaker 1 (04:28):
Oh, how so.
Speaker 2 (04:29):
Well, it showed how Title IX protection can reach
into the workplace.
Speaker 1 (04:33):
OK.
Speaker 2 (04:34):
Especially in places like teaching hospitals that are
closely linked to universities.
Speaker 1 (04:37):
That's huge.
Speaker 2 (04:38):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (04:39):
It seems like this case is just one small part of a
much bigger issue.
Speaker 2 (04:42):
Oh, absolutely.
The debate over whether TitleNIEX covers employees at schools
is still happening in courtsacross the country.
Speaker 1 (04:49):
So this is a really complex situation.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
It is.
It's like trying to figure outthis giant puzzle.
Speaker 1 (04:54):
OK, so let's dig into those retaliation claims a
little more.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
Good idea.
Retaliation can be tough toprove, but it's a real fear for
anyone who reports harassment.
Speaker 1 (05:06):
Absolutely.
Dr Elturei said she was bannedfrom working in the ICU after
reporting.
Speaker 2 (05:09):
Wow.
Speaker 1 (05:10):
And Dr Castro claimed Dr Fontes refused to support
her application for a missiontrip.
Speaker 2 (05:15):
Oh man.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
Which could have messed up her fellowship.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
That's awful.
It shows the risks victims face, even if they do speak up.
Speaker 1 (05:23):
Right, it's so hard to prove intent, especially with
subtle professional retaliation.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
It is.
And then there's that wholeirony of Dr Fontes being
appointed vice chair fordiversity, equity and inclusion
while this was all happening.
Speaker 1 (05:36):
Yeah, I know.
What do you make of that?
Was Yale trying to cover thingsup or were they just clueless?
Speaker 2 (05:42):
It's tough to say it could have been a PR move.
Speaker 1 (05:46):
Oh, you mean to look good.
Speaker 2 (05:47):
Right try to show everyone they're committed to
diversity, even though there's ascandal going on.
Speaker 1 (05:51):
I could see that, but it definitely backfired.
Speaker 2 (05:54):
Oh yeah, for sure.
It makes you wonder if maybethey were trying to sideline Dr
Fontes.
Speaker 1 (05:58):
Oh, you mean like giving him a title to keep him
busy with paperwork instead ofpatients?
Speaker 2 (06:02):
Yeah, exactly While the investigation was happening.
Speaker 1 (06:05):
That's an interesting take.
Speaker 2 (06:06):
It just shows, how complicated things can get.
Speaker 1 (06:09):
Right.
Nothing's ever black and whitein these situations.
Speaker 2 (06:12):
Absolutely.
There are so many layers to itall Personal agendas,
institutional politics it's alot to untangle.
Speaker 1 (06:18):
So in the end the case settled, but we don't know
the terms because it'sconfidential.
We don't know if there was anyfinancial compensation or
anything, but what we do know isthat three of the plaintiffs
ended up leaving Yale.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
Wow, that speaks volumes.
Even with a settlement, theirlives and careers were obviously
affected it really makes youthink about what justice looks
like in these cases.
It does.
So where did everyone end upafter the settlement?
Speaker 1 (06:45):
Well, Dr Fonda's medical license is currently
pending reinstatement.
Dr Elterai left Yale in 2022,and she's now an assistant
professor at UConn School ofMedicine.
Speaker 2 (06:53):
Got it.
Speaker 1 (06:54):
Dr Reinhart is teaching at the CS Mott
Children's Hospital at theUniversity of Michigan.
Speaker 2 (06:59):
So they both moved on .
Speaker 1 (07:00):
They did.
It's almost like their pathsdiverged after this shared
experience.
Speaker 2 (07:05):
Yeah, some chose to start fresh somewhere else and
others stayed at Yale hoping tosee things change from the
inside.
Speaker 1 (07:10):
That's a good point.
Yeah, and for those who stayedat Yale Dr Heidi Bowles is still
an assistant professor ofanesthesiology, and Dr Jodi-Ann
Oliver and Dr Lori-Ann Oliverare still working there as
anesthesiologists as well.
Speaker 2 (07:23):
So three out of the six stayed.
Speaker 1 (07:25):
That's right.
It's interesting to think aboutwhy they stayed.
Speaker 2 (07:28):
Right.
What would make them want tostay after everything that
happened?
Speaker 1 (07:32):
Yeah, maybe they saw some positive changes because of
their lawsuit.
Speaker 2 (07:35):
Maybe or maybe they felt a sense of duty to stay and
push for change from within.
Speaker 1 (07:40):
I could see that.
Speaker 2 (07:41):
Or maybe it was just practical.
You know they'd built theircareers at Yale.
Yeah, Leaving would mean losingyears of work and connections.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
Probably a bit of everything.
Speaker 2 (07:50):
Yeah, it's a tough call, but their choice to stay
does suggest a glimmer of hope.
Speaker 1 (07:55):
That things can get better.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
Exactly that.
Even after going throughsomething so awful, people can
choose to stay and fight forwhat they believe in.
Speaker 1 (08:02):
You know, before we move on, I wanted to mention
something we talked aboutearlier.
Oh yeah, About Dr Fontes beingappointed vice chair for
diversity, equity and inclusionwhile all of this was going on.
Speaker 2 (08:12):
Right.
It was such a strange decision.
How could they put someoneaccused of this kind of
harassment in a position that'ssupposed to be about inclusivity
and safety?
Speaker 1 (08:21):
It did seem like a major PR blunder.
Speaker 2 (08:23):
It was.
It makes you question howserious Yale was about these
allegations.
Were they trying to sweep itall under the rug, or was there
something else going on?
Speaker 1 (08:33):
Earlier you were saying maybe they were trying to
sideline Dr Fontes.
Speaker 2 (08:36):
Yeah, maybe give him more paperwork to do and less
patient contact while theyinvestigated.
Speaker 1 (08:41):
That's a possibility.
But even if that's true, itstill looks really bad.
Speaker 2 (08:45):
Oh for sure.
It just shows how institutions,even prestigious ones, can
prioritize their own interestsover the well-being of their
people.
Speaker 1 (08:52):
This case has definitely revealed some
interesting legal wrinkles,especially with how Title IX
applies.
Speaker 2 (08:57):
Oh yeah, Usually we think of Title IXs in terms of
college sports.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
Right, making sure things are fair for men and
women.
Speaker 2 (09:04):
But this case kind of pushed the boundaries of that.
Speaker 1 (09:06):
Totally Remember how Yale New Haven Hospital said
Title IXs didn't apply to them.
Speaker 2 (09:10):
Yeah, they said it's for educational programs, not
for employment.
Speaker 1 (09:13):
Right, but the judge disagreed.
Speaker 2 (09:16):
Yeah, the judge said that the residency program is
closely tied to the medicalschool.
Speaker 1 (09:20):
So it was more than just an employment situation.
Speaker 2 (09:23):
Exactly.
The judge pointed out thatresidents are both employees,
A&D students.
Speaker 1 (09:28):
Makes sense.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
And the hospital's own policies said to report
harassment through Yale.
Speaker 1 (09:33):
So that connection was pretty clear.
Speaker 2 (09:35):
Oh yeah, so this ruling was a win for the
plaintiffs, because it showedthat Title IX can protect people
in the workplace too.
Speaker 1 (09:42):
At least in places like teaching hospitals that are
linked to universities.
Speaker 2 (09:46):
Right, but this whole debate about whether Title IX
covers employees at educationalinstitutions is still ongoing.
Speaker 1 (09:54):
Wow.
So it's a really evolving areaof the law.
Speaker 2 (09:56):
It is.
This case is just one smallpiece of a much bigger
conversation about how toprevent and address harassment.
Speaker 1 (10:03):
OK, so we've talked about the accusations, the legal
battle, the whole culture atYale.
Speaker 2 (10:09):
Right.
Speaker 1 (10:09):
But we can't forget about the lasting impact on the
plaintiffs and their careers.
Speaker 2 (10:13):
You're so right.
It's easy to get caught up inthe legal stuff and forget that
there are real people whoselives were affected.
Speaker 1 (10:18):
Absolutely.
Three of them chose to leaveYale and three decided to stay.
Speaker 2 (10:23):
Yeah, that's a pretty stark difference.
What do you think it says abouttheir experiences?
Speaker 1 (10:29):
I think it shows how different people cope with
trauma and how they view theinstitution itself.
Speaker 2 (10:34):
That's a good point.
Maybe those who left felt likethey needed a clean break.
Speaker 1 (10:39):
Yeah, like leaving was the only way to truly move
on.
Speaker 2 (10:42):
Maybe they just didn't trust Yale to change.
Speaker 1 (10:44):
And those who stayed.
Maybe they felt like they couldbe part of making things better
.
Speaker 2 (10:47):
Right, or maybe they had strong ties to Yale and
leaving felt impossible.
Speaker 1 (10:51):
Probably a mix of all those things.
Speaker 2 (10:53):
Definitely it's a complex decision with no easy
answers.
Speaker 1 (10:56):
So we've covered a lot, but this is just the tip of
the iceberg.
We've still got a lot to unpack.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
We do, and as we continue our deep dive, I hope
we can go beyond just whathappened and really explore the
deeper questions, you know, thebig picture stuff that makes
this case so important.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
I'm with you.
Let's take a closer look atsome of the specific allegations
against Dr Fontes.
Speaker 2 (11:18):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (11:18):
What were some of the common themes that stood out to
you?
Speaker 2 (11:21):
Honestly, one of the first things I noticed was the
variety of places where thealleged harassment happened.
It wasn't just at the hospitalor on campus.
Speaker 1 (11:28):
You're right, we're talking about professional
dinners, conferences, even acafe meeting.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
Yeah, it really shows how this behavior can creep
into all sorts of situationsthat seem harmless at first.
Speaker 1 (11:39):
It makes it so much harder for victims to figure out
what's appropriate and what'snot.
Speaker 2 (11:44):
Especially when it's someone with authority.
Exactly yeah.
Speaker 1 (11:47):
Like in Dr Jodi Ann Oliver's case, when she reported
Dr Fonta's inappropriatetouching to the division chief,
she was told he was just beinghandsy and affectionate because
of his heritage.
Speaker 2 (11:56):
Oh wow, so they just dismissed it.
Speaker 1 (11:58):
Basically Right.
They brushed it off as culturaldifferences.
Speaker 2 (12:02):
That's so minimizing.
It basically tells the victimthat their feelings don't matter
.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
Exactly, and it protects the perpetrator.
Speaker 2 (12:08):
And it perpetuates that culture where harassment is
just accepted.
Speaker 1 (12:11):
Right.
It makes you wonder if thedivision chief really believed
that or if they were just tryingto avoid dealing with the
problem.
Speaker 2 (12:17):
It's a good question and it points to how even subtle
forms of complicity can createa really harmful environment.
Speaker 1 (12:24):
So the complaint outlines this pattern of
escalation in Dr Fontes'behavior.
Speaker 2 (12:29):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (12:29):
It starts with inappropriate comments, then
moves to unwanted touching andeventually leads to forced
kissing and groping.
Speaker 2 (12:36):
Yeah, that's not just being handsy anymore, that's
crossing a serious line.
Speaker 1 (12:40):
Right.
It's a violation of personalboundaries and a clear abuse of
power.
Speaker 2 (12:43):
Absolutely.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
For example, the complaint says Dr Fontes groped
a resident at a graduation party.
Speaker 2 (12:50):
Oh God.
Speaker 1 (12:51):
He forcibly kissed Dr Bowles at a cafe and he even
forced his tongue down Dr LarryAnn Oliver's throat at a dinner
where he'd already forciblykissed her sister, Dr Jodi Ann
Oliver.
Speaker 2 (13:02):
That's awful, and the fact that some of this
supposedly happened in publicplaces, with people around, is
just unbelievable.
Speaker 1 (13:08):
It does make you wonder why no one intervened.
Speaker 2 (13:10):
Right?
Were they afraid to saysomething?
Did they not realize howserious it was?
Speaker 1 (13:14):
Or was there just this culture of silence where
everyone looked the other way?
Speaker 2 (13:18):
It's hard to say without knowing more about those
specific situations, but itdoes show how complicated these
dynamics can be.
Speaker 1 (13:25):
There are so many things that can contribute to a
culture of harassment.
Speaker 2 (13:29):
Yeah, like fear of retaliation or feeling loyal to
the person or just not wantingto get involved in something
that makes you uncomfortable.
Speaker 1 (13:37):
So let's talk about the alleged retaliation that
some of the plaintiffsexperienced after reporting.
Speaker 2 (13:42):
Okay, retaliation can be really insidious.
It can be anything from subtlesnubs to being excluded from
opportunities, or even gettingdemoted or fired.
Speaker 1 (13:53):
In this case, Dr Elturei claimed she was banned
from working in the ICU Wow.
And Dr Castro said Dr Fonteswouldn't support her application
for a mission trip.
Speaker 2 (14:01):
Which could have hurt her fellowship.
Speaker 1 (14:03):
Exactly.
These are serious allegations.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
They are.
Imagine being a residentalready in such a vulnerable
position, yeah and then facingconsequences like that for
speaking up.
It sends such a terriblemessage to other victims.
Speaker 1 (14:16):
It's like they're being punished for doing the
right thing.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
And that's a big reason why so many people stay
silent.
Speaker 1 (14:21):
They're afraid of the consequences.
Speaker 2 (14:23):
Right.
And then there's the wholething with Yale appointing Dr
Fontes as vice chair fordiversity, equity and inclusion
while all this was going on.
Speaker 1 (14:32):
I know it's mind boggling.
What were they thinking?
Speaker 2 (14:35):
It's hard to say.
It just seems so tone deaf toappoint someone accused of
sexual harassment to theposition that's supposed to be
about creating a safe andinclusive environment.
Speaker 1 (14:45):
It does make you question their judgment.
Speaker 2 (14:47):
Totally, but maybe they were trying to manage the
situation internally.
Speaker 1 (14:51):
You mean, like, give him a different role to minimize
the damage?
Speaker 2 (14:54):
Right.
Maybe they thought they couldcontrol the situation better if
he was in a more administrativerole.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
That's an interesting theory, but it definitely
didn't look good from theoutside.
Speaker 2 (15:03):
Oh no, not at all.
It just adds to the wholeperception that they were more
concerned with protecting theirreputation than addressing the
problem.
Speaker 1 (15:10):
This case has also brought up some really
interesting legal points abouthow Title IX is applied.
Speaker 2 (15:14):
Yeah, we usually think of Title IXs in terms of
college sports and making suremen and women have equal
opportunities, but this casereally pushed the boundaries of
that.
Speaker 1 (15:23):
Remember Yale New Haven Hospital tried to argue
that they weren't subject totitle niax because it's meant
for educational programs, notemployment.
Speaker 2 (15:33):
Yeah, they were basically saying that medical
residents are primarilyemployees, not students.
Speaker 1 (15:38):
Which is a clever argument, considering they're
kind of both.
Speaker 2 (15:41):
Totally, but the judge didn't buy it.
Speaker 1 (15:43):
Well, that's good.
Speaker 2 (15:44):
Yeah, the judge emphasized how closely connected
the residency program is to themedical school.
Speaker 1 (15:50):
So it was more than just a simple employment
situation.
Speaker 2 (15:53):
Right, it was about the educational aspect too.
The judge even pointed out thatthe hospital's own policy is
said to report harassmentthrough Yale.
Speaker 1 (16:00):
So the lines were blurred.
Speaker 2 (16:02):
For sure, and that's what makes this ruling so
significant.
It expands the reach of TitleIX protections into the
workplace, at least in settingsthat are closely tied to
educational institutions.
Speaker 1 (16:12):
That's a big deal.
It feels like we're witnessinga shift in how these laws are
being interpreted.
Speaker 2 (16:16):
We are.
It's all about adapting tothese changing workplace
dynamics.
Speaker 1 (16:21):
Okay.
So to wrap up this part of ourdeep dive, what are your main
takeaways so far?
What stands out to you?
Speaker 2 (16:25):
Honestly, what gets me is how much courage it took
for these plaintiffs to comeforward.
They knew they were riskingtheir careers, their reputations
, everything.
Speaker 1 (16:33):
It's true, they were going up against a powerful
institution and a powerful man.
Speaker 2 (16:37):
Exactly, and that's why this case is so important.
It shows that, even in the faceof immense pressure, people can
still choose to speak truth topower.
Speaker 1 (16:46):
And it highlights how crucial it is to support
survivors of harassment.
We need to create a culturewhere people feel safe coming
forward, knowing they'll bebelieved and supported.
Speaker 2 (16:56):
Absolutely.
We need to move beyond justacknowledging the problem and
start actively working towardssolutions.
Speaker 1 (17:01):
That means holding institutions accountable for
creating a safe and equitableenvironment.
Speaker 2 (17:05):
Exactly, and that includes having clear policies
against harassment,investigating complaints
thoroughly and taking realaction against those who are
responsible.
Speaker 1 (17:15):
This first part of our deep dive has been a real
eye-opener.
Speaker 2 (17:18):
It has.
We've seen how power dynamicscan be abused, even in
institutions that are supposedto be dedicated to knowledge and
progress.
Speaker 1 (17:25):
It's a reminder that harassment can happen anywhere
and that it takes all of us tocreate a culture of respect and
accountability.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
Couldn't agree more.
Picking up where we left offlast time, let's think about
what happened after thesettlement.
Okay, remember, three of thosewomen decided to leave Yale
altogether.
Speaker 1 (17:42):
It makes you wonder like what was it about the
environment there that madeleaving seem like the only
option?
Speaker 2 (17:49):
Yeah, did they just not believe anything would
actually change.
Speaker 1 (17:53):
It's possible.
Maybe they felt disillusionedby the whole process.
Speaker 2 (17:56):
Yeah, even with the settlement, maybe they felt like
justice hadn't really beenserved.
Speaker 1 (17:59):
Right, or that Yale wouldn't really commit to
changing things.
Speaker 2 (18:03):
Yeah, it must have been a tough decision for them.
They were successful doctorswith established careers at a
prestigious institution.
Speaker 1 (18:10):
Absolutely.
Starting over somewhere new isnever easy.
Speaker 2 (18:13):
It really shows how deeply these experiences can
affect you, both professionallyand personally.
Speaker 1 (18:18):
For sure, sometimes you need a fresh start just to
heal and rebuild.
Speaker 2 (18:22):
Exactly.
Speaker 1 (18:22):
So specifically Dr Elturai.
She's now an assistantprofessor at UConn School of
Medicine.
She left Yale back in 2022,right in the middle of all of
this.
Speaker 2 (18:32):
It's a good reminder that these legal cases can drag
on for years.
Speaker 1 (18:36):
Oh yeah.
Speaker 2 (18:37):
Imagine trying to focus on your career, your
patients, your research, withthis whole thing hanging over
you.
It's got to be incrediblystressful it is being a doctor
is hard enough without all thatadded pressure.
Speaker 1 (18:48):
Dr Reinhart also moved on.
She's teaching at the CS MockChildren's Hospital at the
University of Michigan now.
Speaker 2 (18:54):
OK.
Speaker 1 (18:54):
Michigan's a great school too.
Speaker 2 (18:55):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (18:56):
It seems like both Dr Altarai and Dr Reinhart landed
on their feet.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
Yeah, they did.
They're both talented doctorsand clearly resilient.
Speaker 1 (19:05):
But we can't forget about the emotional toll this
must have taken.
Speaker 2 (19:09):
Oh, of course not.
Even if they're doing well intheir new jobs, they still had
to uproot their lives, leavebehind colleagues and friends
and start over.
Speaker 1 (19:16):
It's a huge change.
So what about the plaintiffswho stayed at Yale?
What was their experience like?
Speaker 2 (19:22):
Yeah, did they see any real changes after the
settlement?
Speaker 1 (19:24):
That's the big question, isn't it?
It's hard to know what happenedbehind the scenes.
We do know that Dr Heidi Bowlesis still an assistant professor
of anesthesiology there.
Speaker 2 (19:33):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (19:34):
And Dr Jodi-Ann Oliver and Dr Lori-Ann Oliver.
They're also still working asanesthesiologists at Yale.
Speaker 2 (19:41):
So three out of the six original plaintiffs are
still there.
Speaker 1 (19:44):
Yeah, it's interesting to think about.
Speaker 2 (19:46):
It is.
What do you think it means?
Speaker 1 (19:48):
Maybe they saw some positive changes happen at Yale
because of the lawsuit.
Speaker 2 (19:52):
That's possible.
Or maybe they just felt likethey had a responsibility to
stay and advocate for changefrom within.
Speaker 1 (19:59):
Yeah, maybe they felt like leaving wouldn't solve
anything.
Speaker 2 (20:01):
Could also be a practical thing.
You know, They'd built theircareers at Yale.
Speaker 1 (20:05):
Right.
Speaker 2 (20:06):
Leaving would mean giving up a lot.
Speaker 1 (20:07):
It's probably a mix of all those factors.
Speaker 2 (20:09):
Probably, but choosing to stay suggests a
certain amount of hope.
You know like they believethings could get better.
Speaker 1 (20:16):
You know I keep thinking about that whole thing,
with Dr Fontes being appointedvice chair for diversity, equity
and inclusion while theseallegations were still pending.
Speaker 2 (20:24):
Oh yeah, that was bizarre.
How do you even make sense ofthat?
Speaker 1 (20:27):
I know it's like they completely missed the point.
Speaker 2 (20:34):
Like how can someone accused of such serious
harassment be put in charge ofpromoting inclusivity and safety
?
It just doesn't add up.
Speaker 1 (20:38):
It was a PR disaster waiting to happen.
Speaker 2 (20:40):
It was.
It really makes you questionwhat Yale was thinking.
Were they just trying to sweepit all under the rug or what?
I remember you saying earlierthat maybe it was a way to
sideline Dr Fontes.
Yeah, maybe give him adifferent role so he wasn't
interacting with patients asmuch while they were
investigating.
Speaker 1 (20:55):
Yeah, that's possible .
But even if that's true, itstill looks really bad oh
totally.
Speaker 2 (21:00):
It just reinforces this idea that they cared more
about protecting their own imagethan addressing the problem.
Speaker 1 (21:06):
Let's talk about the legal side of this for a minute,
especially that whole debateabout Title IX.
Speaker 2 (21:10):
Okay, yeah, that was a big part of the case.
Remember how Yale New HavenHospital tried to argue that
Title IX didn't even apply tothem.
Speaker 1 (21:17):
Yeah, they said it's meant for educational programs,
not employment.
Speaker 2 (21:21):
Exactly and since medical residents are employees
of the hospital, they claimedthey were exempt.
Speaker 1 (21:27):
It was a clever argument.
I'll give them that it reallyhighlighted that gray area
between education and employment.
Speaker 2 (21:33):
Yeah, especially in a teaching hospital where
residents are kind of bothstudents and employees.
Speaker 1 (21:38):
Right, but the judge didn't agree.
Speaker 2 (21:40):
No, the judge said that the residency program is
too closely tied to the medicalschool to make that distinction.
Speaker 1 (21:46):
The judge's reasoning was really interesting it was.
Speaker 2 (21:49):
They basically said that residents are both
employees and students and thatthe hospital's own policies
directed employees to reportharassment through Yale.
Speaker 1 (21:59):
So there was no separating the two.
Speaker 2 (22:00):
Exactly, and that's what makes this ruling so
important.
It shows that Title IXs canprotect people in the workplace
too.
Speaker 1 (22:07):
Especially in settings that are closely
connected to educationalinstitutions.
Speaker 2 (22:11):
Right, but it's important to remember that this
whole issue of whether Title IXapplies to employees at schools
is still being debated in courtsall over the country.
Speaker 1 (22:20):
So this case is just one piece of a much bigger
puzzle.
Speaker 2 (22:24):
It is and it shows how the law is constantly trying
to catch up with changingsocial norms and workplace
dynamics.
Speaker 1 (22:30):
Let's zoom out a bit and think about the bigger
picture.
What does this case tell usabout the culture of harassment
in academia in general?
Speaker 2 (22:37):
That's a good question.
We tend to think ofuniversities as these places of
higher learning where thingslike harassment wouldn't happen.
Speaker 1 (22:46):
Right, like they're supposed to be above that.
Speaker 2 (22:47):
Exactly, but, as we've seen, even the most
prestigious schools can have aculture of silence where
harassment is allowed to thrive.
Speaker 1 (22:55):
And it's not just Yale.
The complaint mentioned otherexamples of alleged harassment
there.
Speaker 2 (23:01):
Oh right, Like the cases of Dr Michael Simons and
Dr Eugene Richman.
Speaker 1 (23:05):
Yeah, they were both found to have engaged in
harassment, but they werebasically protected by the
institution.
Speaker 2 (23:11):
And then there's the survey data that shows higher
rates of harassment at Yalecompared to other universities.
Speaker 1 (23:16):
Right, it makes you wonder if Yale was really
committed to addressing theproblem or if they were more
concerned with protecting theirreputation and the powerful
people within the institution.
Speaker 2 (23:27):
It's a tough question , but it's an important one.
We need to hold institutionsaccountable for creating a safe
environment for everyone.
Speaker 1 (23:33):
Absolutely.
This deep dive has reallyhighlighted how institutions
handle or sometimes mishandlethese sensitive issues.
Speaker 2 (23:41):
It has.
So, before we move on, what aresome of the key takeaways you'd
like to emphasize?
Speaker 1 (23:46):
I think one of the biggest lessons here is the
importance of speaking up.
If you see something wrong, youhave to say something.
Speaker 2 (23:53):
Oh, absolutely.
It's not always easy,especially if you're worried
about retaliation or causingtrouble.
Speaker 1 (23:59):
But staying silent only protects the people who are
doing the harassing.
Speaker 2 (24:02):
Exactly.
We need to create a culturewhere victims feel safe coming
forward and where bystandersfeel empowered to intervene.
Speaker 1 (24:11):
I also think this case shows the need for more
transparency and accountabilitywithin institutions.
Confidential settlements mightbe the norm, but they can also
shield institutions from realscrutiny.
Speaker 2 (24:22):
That's true.
On the one hand, you want toprotect the privacy of the
individuals involved.
Speaker 1 (24:27):
Right.
Speaker 2 (24:27):
But on the other hand , that secrecy can make it hard
to know if any real changes arebeing made.
Speaker 1 (24:32):
And it can create the impression that institutions
are more concerned withprotecting their own reputation
than with truly addressing theproblem.
Speaker 2 (24:38):
It's a tough balance to strike.
This whole deep dive has beenreally thought-provoking.
Speaker 1 (24:42):
It has.
It's made me think about howcomplex this issue of sexual
harassment is and how much workwe still have to do to create a
truly just and equitable society.
Speaker 2 (24:54):
Couldn't agree more.
So what are some of the bigquestions we should be asking
ourselves as we move forward?
Speaker 1 (25:00):
Well, I think one of the most important questions is
how do we create a culture wherevictims feel safe speaking up?
Speaker 2 (25:05):
Yeah, knowing that they'll be believed and
supported and not punished forcoming forward.
Speaker 1 (25:11):
It's about building trust and creating an
environment where everyone feelsrespected.
Speaker 2 (25:15):
Exactly, and it's about holding institutions
accountable, making sure theyhave clear policies against
harassment and that theyactually enforce them.
And providing resources andsupport for victims.
Absolutely, we need to movebeyond just talking about the
problem and actually startimplementing real solutions.
Speaker 1 (25:32):
So we've covered a lot of ground in this second
part of our deep dive.
Speaker 2 (25:34):
We have.
We've looked at what happenedafter the settlement, the impact
on the plaintiffs, the legalarguments, the bigger picture of
harassment and academia.
Speaker 1 (25:43):
But there's one piece of the puzzle we haven't talked
about yet.
Speaker 2 (25:45):
Oh yeah, what's that?
Speaker 1 (25:47):
What about Dr Fontes?
What happened to him?
Speaker 2 (25:49):
You're right, we've talked about the women who came
forward, but what about the manwho was accused?
Speaker 1 (25:54):
Is he back practicing medicine?
Did he face any consequencesbeyond the lawsuit?
Speaker 2 (26:00):
These are important questions.
We need to know what happenedto him to fully understand the
scope of this case.
Speaker 1 (26:06):
So let's shift our focus to Dr Fontes in the final
part of our deep dive.
Speaker 2 (26:09):
OK, I'm ready to find out what happened to him.
Speaker 1 (26:11):
Join us for the final part, as we wrap up this
complex case and explore what itall means for the fight against
sexual harassment.
Speaker 2 (26:20):
OK, so we've talked about the plaintiffs, the
allegations against Dr Fontes,the legal battles and the
culture at Yale.
But what about Dr Fonteshimself?
Speaker 1 (26:30):
Right, we've discussed the impact on the
women, but what aboutconsequences for him?
You know the accused, yeah,Good point.
Speaker 2 (26:36):
According to those news articles, his medical
license was still pendingreinstatement as of 2021.
Speaker 1 (26:41):
So four years after the lawsuit was filed.
Speaker 2 (26:43):
Exactly.
It's a long time to be in limboprofessionally.
It is Makes you wonder whatthat process was like for him
and what the medical board waslooking for, you know, to decide
if he could practice again.
Speaker 1 (26:55):
It's interesting the articles don't really say if
there were any restrictions orconditions attached to his
license.
Speaker 2 (27:00):
Oh, so we don't know if he had to do extra training
or evaluations or anything likethat.
Speaker 1 (27:04):
Right, it's possible.
All those details areconfidential.
Speaker 2 (27:07):
Ah, that makes sense.
Speaker 1 (27:08):
Which brings us back to that whole issue of
transparency.
Speaker 2 (27:11):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (27:12):
On one hand, you want to protect people's privacy,
but on the other hand, this lackof information is frustrating.
Speaker 2 (27:18):
Especially for those who want to see accountability
Exactly yeah.
Speaker 1 (27:21):
It's a tough balance, yeah, and it reminds me of
something we've talked about alot in this deep dive.
Speaker 2 (27:25):
What's that?
Speaker 1 (27:26):
That tension between protecting individuals and
making sure institutions aretransparent.
Speaker 2 (27:31):
Right, and we saw that with the confidential
settlement too.
Speaker 1 (27:34):
Yeah, it's common practice, but it can feel like
it shields institutions fromhaving to answer for their
actions.
Speaker 2 (27:41):
It makes it harder to know if they actually made any
changes to prevent this fromhappening again.
Speaker 1 (27:46):
You know, something that really stuck with me from
the complaint was how theycompare this case to other
instances of alleged harassmentat Yale.
Speaker 2 (27:55):
Oh yeah, you mean the cases with Dr Michael Simons
and Dr Eugene Richmond.
Speaker 1 (27:59):
Those are the ones.
It makes it seem like Yale hasthis pattern of protecting
powerful men, even when they'vebeen accused of harassment.
Speaker 2 (28:07):
It's hard to ignore that pattern, especially with
those survey results showinghigher rates of sexual
harassment at Yale.
Speaker 1 (28:13):
Right.
It makes you wonder if this wasjust a few bad apples or if
there's a deeper problem, aculture that allows this to
happen.
Speaker 2 (28:19):
That's the big question, is it?
And it's something we see ininstitutions all over the place,
not just at Yale.
Speaker 1 (28:25):
It feels like there's a reluctance to really dig into
the root causes of harassment.
Speaker 2 (28:29):
Yeah, maybe because it would mean changing some
pretty entrenched powerstructures.
Speaker 1 (28:33):
It's easier to focus on individual bad actors than to
address the system itself.
Speaker 2 (28:37):
So much easier.
So what are some of the bigtakeaways from this whole deep
dive into the case at Yale?
What have we learned about thefight against sexual harassment?
Speaker 1 (28:47):
I think one of the most important lessons is the
power of collective action.
You know, these plaintiffsmight not have accomplished as
much if they hadn't cometogether.
Speaker 2 (28:55):
Right, there's strength in numbers.
Speaker 1 (28:57):
Absolutely, and it sends a message that this
behavior won't be tolerated.
Speaker 2 (29:01):
And it also highlights how important it is
to support survivors.
These women face so muchpressure for coming forward.
Speaker 1 (29:08):
They were incredibly brave.
Speaker 2 (29:09):
They were.
They needed a lot of support toget through all of that.
Speaker 1 (29:12):
And that support can come from so many places
Colleagues, friends, family,advocacy groups, lawyers it
takes a village.
Speaker 2 (29:21):
You're so right.
I think another key takeaway isthat institutions need to be
held accountable.
Speaker 1 (29:26):
Yeah, it's not enough to just have policies on paper.
Speaker 2 (29:29):
No, they need to actually enforce those policies,
investigate complaintsthoroughly and take action
against people who engage inharassment.
Speaker 1 (29:37):
And not just a slap on the wrist either.
The consequences need to fitthe offense.
Speaker 2 (29:41):
Exactly.
It has to send a message thatthis behavior won't be tolerated
.
Speaker 1 (29:45):
We also can't forget about the role of witnesses.
Speaker 2 (29:47):
Oh, that's so important.
Speaker 1 (29:48):
We all have a responsibility to speak up if we
see something wrong.
Speaker 2 (29:52):
Whether it's challenging inappropriate
behavior or supporting someonewho's been harassed, we can't
just stand by and do nothing.
Speaker 1 (29:58):
Silence only makes the problem worse.
Speaker 2 (30:01):
Wow, this deep dive has been quite a journey.
Speaker 1 (30:04):
It has.
We started with these legaldocuments and ended up exploring
power dynamics, institutionalculture and the really personal
stories at the heart of thiscase.
Speaker 2 (30:14):
It's been eye-opening for sure.
It's clear that evenprestigious institutions can be
part of the problem.
Speaker 1 (30:19):
And that seeking justice can be a long and
complicated process.
Speaker 2 (30:23):
It is, but we've also seen the courage of the women
who came forward and the impactthey had on Yale and hopefully
on the wider conversation aboutharassment.
Speaker 1 (30:32):
I hope this deep dive has encouraged everyone
listening to think criticallyabout these issues and to
consider how they can helpcreate a more just and equitable
world.
Speaker 2 (30:40):
Me too.
Whether it's speaking upsupporting survivors or
advocating for change, we allhave a role to play.
Speaker 1 (30:46):
Thanks for joining us on this deep dive.
Until next time, keep askingquestions, keep learning and
keep pushing for a better world.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.