What happens when the very institution (HR) meant to protect employees becomes a breeding ground for toxicity and retaliation? In this eye-opening episode of the Employee Survival Guide®, Mark Carey and his co-host dissect a recent federal court case involving St. John’s University, revealing the harrowing experiences of Dr. Charles Fortman and Dr. Zehra Sever. These brave employees faced harassment and retaliation after courageously reporting misconduct by their department chair, Dr. Mustafa Sadoki. Their story serves as a stark reminder of the hostile work environments that can fester when toxic management prioritizes power over employee welfare.
Join us as we navigate the intricate legal landscape surrounding workplace harassment and discrimination. The discussion sheds light on the critical importance of understanding your rights as an employee and the often-overlooked nuances of filing complaints. With a focus on procedural accuracy, we emphasize that legal missteps can derail even the most legitimate claims. This episode is not just an analysis of a legal case; it’s a call to action for employees to advocate for themselves in the face of institutional challenges.
As we delve deeper into the complexities of employment law, we explore the harsh realities of navigating HR systems that frequently prioritize institutional protection over employee rights. From understanding severance negotiations to recognizing the signs of discrimination—be it gender, race, or disability—this episode is packed with invaluable insights. We equip you with the knowledge to confront workplace bullies and toxic cultures head-on, empowering you to take charge of your career and well-being.
Whether you’re currently facing a hostile work environment or simply seeking to bolster your employee survival skills, this episode of the Employee Survival Guide® provides essential tools and strategies. Tune in for insider tips on negotiating severance packages, understanding employment contracts, and recognizing the signs of workplace discrimination. Don’t let fear silence your voice; learn how to navigate the complexities of employment law and stand up for your rights.
Join Mark Carey and his co-host as they unravel the intricacies of this pivotal case, offering you the knowledge and courage to face your own workplace challenges. Remember, understanding your rights is not just about survival; it’s about thriving in your career. Tune in and empower yourself with the tools you need to navigate the often treacherous waters of the workplace!
If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, X and LinkedIn.
We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Leaving a review will help other employees find the Employee Survival Guide.
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.
Transcript:
Speaker #0
Hey, it’s Mark here, and welcome to the next edition of the Employee Survival Guide, where I tell you, as always, what your employer does definitely not want you to know about, and a lot more.
Speaker #1
Welcome to another episode of the Employee Survival Guide, produced by employment attorney Mark Carey. Imagine for a second that you finally managed to prove to a federal judge that your boss harassed you.
Speaker #2
Right. And not just harassed you, but deliberately sabotaged your career.
Speaker #1
Exactly. And you have this absolute mountain of documented evidence. You did everything right. But then the judge just throws out a massive chunk of your case.
Speaker #2
And it’s not because they don’t believe you, but, you know, because you used the wrong form to report it.
Speaker #1
It is just a wild reality.
Speaker #2
But that is exactly what we are getting into today. We are looking at a 2026 federal court memorandum in order.
Speaker #1
Yeah, this is the Fortman and Sever versus St. John’s University and Mustafa Sadoki case.
Speaker #2
Right.
Speaker #1
And our mission today is to unpack the facts of this legal decision strictly through the lens of the employee.
Speaker #2
Because we really want to treat this case as a master class for you, the listener. It’s about helping you recognize the patterns of a toxic employer.
Speaker #1
Yeah. And to understand how HR departments actually function in a crisis.
Speaker #2
Right.
Speaker #1
Right. And of course, how to avoid those. strict legal traps that could just destroy your case on a technicality.
Speaker #2
Before we really get into the details, it’s crucial to understand the legal posture of what we are looking at here.
Speaker #1
Oh, definitely.
Speaker #2
Memorandum and order at this stage of a lawsuit, so we’re often dealing with a motion to dismiss, means the court is required by law to assume that all the plaintiff’s allegations are true.
Speaker #1
Right. So the judge is essentially saying, even if we accept every terrible thing you allege is 100% factual, Do you actually have a valid legal claim under the statutes?
Speaker #2
Exactly. So as we discuss these horrific events, we are looking at the allegations the court is testing against the strict letter of the law.
Speaker #1
That is such an important distinction because, man, the allegations here are intense. So let’s set the stage.
Speaker #2
Good idea.
Speaker #1
We are looking at the physics department at St. John’s University or SJU. We have two employees, the plaintiffs.
Speaker #2
Right. Dr. Charles Fortman and Dr. Zehra Sever. Yeah.
Speaker #1
Dr. Fortman is a tenured track professor, and Dr. Sever is an adjunct associate professor. And on the other side is the employer’s agent.
Speaker #2
The defendant, Dr. Mustafa Sadoki. He is the chair of the physics department.
Speaker #1
So let’s start with Dr. Fortman, because his experience shows, like, exactly how an institution reacts to an employee who simply tries to do the right thing.
Speaker #2
Yeah, just trying to report bad behavior.
Speaker #1
Fortman was highly successful before all this started, wasn’t he?
Speaker #2
He was on a very clear upward trajectory. Yeah. In 2017, he was promoted to a full-time tenure track position.
Speaker #1
Which is huge in academia.
Speaker #2
It is. And with that promotion, he actually secured a massive $100,000 research grant to install a highly specialized piece of equipment.
Speaker #1
A superconducting magnet, right?
Speaker #2
Exactly. And, you know, in the academic world, bringing in that kind of grant money makes you a massive asset to the university.
Speaker #1
Sure.
Speaker #2
But everything shifted. when Fortman decided to act as a whistleblower against his own boss, Dr. Sudoki.
Speaker #1
And he wasn’t even reporting like embezzlement or academic fraud. He was reporting interpersonal toxicity and discrimination against other people.
Speaker #2
Right. The documents allege that Sudoki asked Fortman to give a negative recommendation to a female student.
Speaker #1
Purely because Sudoki claimed she was flirting, which is just, wow.
Speaker #2
Yeah. And there are also allegations that Sudoki bragged about firing a black department secretary by like Bye. deliberately misrepresenting her start date.
Speaker #1
So Fortman sees all this, and he repeatedly reports his boss to human resources.
Speaker #2
And that right there is the catalyst. Almost immediately after Fortman reports him, the environment just turns totally hostile.
Speaker #1
Retaliation mode.
Speaker #2
Exactly. Sudoki begins publicly and privately attacking Fortman. He starts calling him old, telling him he is burned out.
Speaker #1
And literally labeling his the villain of the department, which sounds like a cartoon, but it’s real life.
Speaker #2
It’s completely real.
Speaker #1
You know, it’s like reporting toxic behavior to HR is treated by toxic bosses like a declaration of war.
Speaker #2
That’s a great way to put it.
Speaker #1
Yeah. And the boss immediately begins searching for ways to just cut off the employee’s supply lines. Right. But I want to stop right there because this is where a lot of people get confused.
Speaker #2
How so?
Speaker #1
Well, if an employee is bringing in $100,000 grants, why would the employer tolerate a department chair actively attacking that person?
Speaker #2
Right. It seems counterintuitive.
Speaker #1
It seems completely counterintuitive to the university’s bottom line.
Speaker #2
It does, until you understand what toxic management actually prioritizes.
Speaker #1
Which is what?
Speaker #2
Power.
Speaker #1
Basically, yeah.
Speaker #2
In these environments, loyalty to the so-called chain of command is often valued far above maintaining a safe, compliant workplace.
Speaker #1
Wow.
Speaker #2
So when Fortman broke that chain of loyalty to report misconduct to HR, he went from being a financial asset to an institutional threat.
Speaker #1
So the retaliation wasn’t about Fortman’s physics research at all?
Speaker #2
Not at all. It was a personal vendetta to reestablish dominance.
Speaker #1
But, you know, in a modern corporate or academic setting, a toxic boss. Usually can’t just fire a tenure-track professor on the spot because they don’t like him.
Speaker #2
No, they can’t.
Speaker #1
So how does this retaliation actually play out mechanically?
Speaker #2
They weaponize the bureaucracy. They use the institution’s own rules to slowly strangle your ability to do your job.
Speaker #1
Okay, so what did that look like for Fortman?
Speaker #2
Well, at first, Sadoki froze his startup funds.
Speaker #1
Oh, man. So you couldn’t buy what he needed.
Speaker #2
Exactly. This forced Fortman to self-fund his own academic research for years out of his own pocket.
Speaker #1
That is insane.
Speaker #2
But the most insidious tactic was what he did regarding that superconducting magnet we mentioned earlier.
Speaker #1
This part is fascinating. Fortman is trying to install this machine, which is obviously crucial for his research and his path to tenure, right?
Speaker #2
Right.
Speaker #1
And the lawsuit alleges Sadaki starts imposing what they called excessive and dubious cycles of safety concerns.
Speaker #2
Yeah, he becomes hyper fixated on safety protocols that aren’t even required by standard industry practice.
Speaker #1
Just to create hurdles for Fortman. Meanwhile, Other employees in the exact same building are operating similar magnets without any of these extreme demands.
Speaker #2
It’s totally targeted.
Speaker #1
But wait, if a boss suddenly imposes unprecedented safety standards on just one single employee’s project, isn’t that a giant glaring red flag for the university’s administration?
Speaker #2
You would think so.
Speaker #1
Right. Like, why doesn’t upper management see through this?
Speaker #2
Because toxic employers know exactly how to hide their retaliation behind the impenetrable shield of compliance.
Speaker #1
All right. Safety first.
Speaker #2
Exactly. To upper management or an inattentive HR representative reviewing a file, a manager raising safety concerns doesn’t look like retaliation.
Speaker #1
It just looks like a manager doing their job diligently.
Speaker #2
Yes. It manufactures a paper trail that looks entirely legitimate on the surface. They aren’t actually trying to make the workplace safer.
Speaker #1
They are deliberately setting the employee up to fail so they can document a history of the employee’s inability to execute.
Speaker #2
Precisely. They are basically generating a fake performance issue.
Speaker #1
And Sadaki didn’t stop there.
Speaker #2
He did.
Speaker #1
He also allegedly sabotaged Fortman’s teaching metrics, right?
Speaker #2
He did. Right before student evaluations, Sadaki abruptly moved Fortman from teaching a highly popular 50-student college physics class.
Speaker #1
And why does that matter?
Speaker #2
Because smaller class sizes are much easier to skew negatively if just one or two students give a bad review.
Speaker #1
Exactly.
Speaker #2
Siddiqui knew this would damage Fortman’s metrics when the tenure committee reviewed him.
Speaker #1
The documents even allege he went to Dr. Sever and asked her to find a Turkish professor just so he could lobby that professor to vote against Fortman’s tenure.
Speaker #2
Which perfectly transitions to the second plaintiff, Dr. Zephra Sever. Yeah,
Speaker #1
let’s talk about her.
Speaker #2
Because if St. John’s University allowed a department chair to openly retaliate against a peer, a tenure-track professor like Fortman, without any real consequences?
Speaker #1
They were establishing a culture of impunity.
Speaker #2
Yes. And that culture set the stage for an even darker pattern of abuse against a much more vulnerable junior employee.
Speaker #1
Let’s talk about the power dynamics here for a second. Dr. Sever was an adjunct professor.
Speaker #2
Right.
Speaker #1
And for anyone who doesn’t know, an adjunct has virtually zero job security. They’re essentially contract workers.
Speaker #2
They are highly vulnerable.
Speaker #1
And she reported directly to Sudoki. So beginning in 2018. The escalation of the hostile environment she faced is just staggering.
Speaker #2
The allegations detail a harrowing case of quid pro quo sexual harassment.
Speaker #1
It’s really hard to read.
Speaker #2
It is. Sudokia allegedly would uninvitedly enter her classrooms while she was teaching just to stare at her. He would wait outside her home, sometimes for hours, to demand that she accept car rides from him.
Speaker #1
And it even escalated to physical assault, right? Grabbing her and forcing kisses on her?
Speaker #2
Yes. And he also made these bizarre. grandiose promises claiming he was going to become an advisor to the king of Morocco and that he would take her with him.
Speaker #1
I have to ask, how does an employee navigate this when the harasser is the department chair?
Speaker #2
It’s incredibly difficult.
Speaker #1
I mean, he controls her paycheck, her lab space, and is literally waiting outside her house. It feels less like a workplace conflict and more like a hostage situation.
Speaker #2
It is essentially professional hostage taking.
Speaker #1
And that is exactly why the law recognizes quid pro quo harassment.
Speaker #2
Which means this for that.
Speaker #1
Right.
Speaker #2
It occurs when a manager makes an employee’s reaction to unwelcome sexual conduct the basis for decisions affecting their employment.
Speaker #1
So he directly tied her career to his sexual advances.
Speaker #2
Yes. He offered her a non-tenure track position, literally begged her to accept it, and then used that job as leverage.
Speaker #1
And when she repeatedly rejected his marriage proposals and sexual advances, the retaliation was absolute.
Speaker #2
Completely. He blocked her from her lab space, yelled at her publicly in front of colleagues, and even had her locked out of her work emails.
Speaker #1
Wow. So if the boss is weaponizing the department’s rules and controlling your physical workspace. The only logical move for Sever is to bypass him entirely and go to human resources.
Speaker #2
You would think so, yes.
Speaker #1
But when she actually pulled that alarm, how did the university systems react to a department chair acting like this?
Speaker #2
This is where we see the stark reality of institutional protection. In the spring of 2023 alone, Dr. Sever filed nine complaint letters with HR.
Speaker #1
Hold on. Nine letters?
Speaker #2
Nine letters. She was in such fear that she actually called public safety to dispatch a security guard to witness the harassment.
Speaker #1
She had a university security guard dispatched to witness the harassment. How can an institution look at that and do absolutely nothing? Did HR even respond?
Speaker #2
They responded by telling her they were unable to substantiate her claims.
Speaker #1
Unable to substantiate. Are they just lying or is there some massive legal loophole they’re exploiting here?
Speaker #2
Well, it is a functional reality of how some HR departments operate to manage liability. Instead of protecting her, the university placed a ticking nine-month clock on her $50,000 startup funds.
Speaker #1
Wait, why would they do that?
Speaker #2
By forcing her to rush her research, she had to buy degraded chemicals, and those degraded chemicals completely ruined her research results.
Speaker #1
Oh, my God. So while she’s literally begging for physical protection, the institution is systematically setting her up to fail academically.
Speaker #2
Yes.
Speaker #1
So they can eventually say, We didn’t fire her because she complained. We fired her because her research was poor.
Speaker #2
Exactly. They manufacture a legitimate sounding reason. And when the university finally did decide to formally investigate, their approach was incredibly aggressive toward the victim.
Speaker #1
What did they do?
Speaker #2
SJU lawyers interrogated Dr. Savant for three hours without an attorney or an advisor present on her behalf.
Speaker #1
That is brutal.
Speaker #2
Ultimately, the university rejected her reappointment. They fired the victim. And according to the timeline of these documents, Dr. Sudoki remains the chair of the department.
Speaker #1
That just shatters the entire illusion. We grew up thinking H.R. is like the police department for the workplace, right?
Speaker #2
Yes, that’s the myth.
Speaker #1
But it sounds more like H.R. is a building inspector hired by the landlord, not the tenant. Like, they are there to check for structural liability to the building, the university, not to make sure your apartment is actually safe to live in.
Speaker #2
That is a very accurate analogy. Which brings us to a vital legal concept the court focused heavily on, deliberate indifference.
Speaker #1
OK, break that down for us.
Speaker #2
So the federal judge allowed Surratt’s Title IX and Title VII claims to survive the university’s motion to dismiss.
Speaker #1
Title VII being the one that protects employees from discrimination based on sex, race and religion.
Speaker #2
Right. And Title IX specifically targets sex-based discrimination in educational programs.
Speaker #1
Got it.
Speaker #2
To qualify as deliberately indifferent under the law. An employer doesn’t just have to be bad at their jobs. Incompetence isn’t always illegal.
Speaker #1
Unfortunately.
Speaker #2
Deliberate indifference requires proving the institution had actual knowledge of the severe harassment and deliberately chose a response that was clearly unreasonable.
Speaker #1
So where is that legal undrawn? Like if HR investigates and just does a really sloppy job, does that count?
Speaker #2
Usually, no. A sloppy investigation might just be negligence. But here, the judge ruled that ignoring nine complaints interrogating the victim without representation and then firing her while protecting the accused harasser.
Speaker #1
That crosses the line into a clearly unreasonable response.
Speaker #2
Exactly. They didn’t just fail to protect her. Their actions actively shielded the harasser.
Speaker #1
OK, so because of that deliberate indifference, Dr. Siebert gets her day in court for those claims.
Speaker #2
She does.
Speaker #1
But this is where the legal mechanics get truly terrifying for an employee trying to survive a hostile workplace.
Speaker #2
The procedural traps.
Speaker #1
Yes, the procedural traps, because even when you have a you horrific, documented, factual case of discrimination and retaliation, the employer can still beat you on a technicality.
Speaker #2
And that is exactly what happened to some of Fortman’s claims.
Speaker #1
Right. Let’s look at why the judge actually dismissed several of Dr. Fortman’s claims, despite everything we just talked about.
Speaker #2
This is a critical area for employees to understand. The justice system, particularly in federal employment law, requires absolute procedural perfection.
Speaker #1
Which is so hard when you’re in crisis mode.
Speaker #2
It is. Fortman brought claims for religious discrimination under Title VII and age discrimination under the ADEA, which is the Age Discrimination and Employment Act.
Speaker #1
And the judge threw those claims out entirely, right?
Speaker #2
Completely. The primary reasons? Failure to exhaust administrative remedies and the statute of limitations.
Speaker #1
Let’s talk about the EEOC checkbox trap first, because this one blew my mind.
Speaker #2
It catches so many people.
Speaker #1
So Fortman claimed in his federal lawsuit that he suffered religious discrimination because Sadoki allegedly accused him of lying about being Catholic.
Speaker #2
Right.
Speaker #1
But before you can sue in federal court, you have to file a formal charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the EEOC.
Speaker #2
Correct.
Speaker #1
When Fortman filled out that initial form, he only physically checked the boxes for age and retaliation. He didn’t check the box for religion.
Speaker #2
And he didn’t write about the religious discrimination in the narrative section of that specific form either.
Speaker #1
And because of that single omission on an administrative form, the federal judge threw the religious discrimination claims out.
Speaker #2
Yeah. The courts enforce a very rigid rule. If a claim in your lawsuit isn’t reasonably related to what you put on that initial EEOC form, it cannot be brought into federal court later.
Speaker #1
It’s like having your house burned down. But the insurance company denies your completely valid claim because you filled out the initial report with a blue pen instead of black ink.
Speaker #2
It’s incredibly frustrating.
Speaker #1
The fire still happened. The damage is real. You have photos of the flames, but the system simply doesn’t care. It feels incredibly punitive to the victim.
Speaker #2
It does feel punitive. But, you know, from the court’s perspective, the primary purpose of that EEOC form is to give the government agency a chance to investigate.
Speaker #1
OK, sure.
Speaker #2
and to put the employer on official notice of exactly what they are being accused of. If you don’t check the box or explicitly write it in the narrative, the court views it as you failing to give them that required notice.
Speaker #1
You fail to exhaust your administrative remedies.
Speaker #2
Exactly. And that rigidity extends to timeframes as well.
Speaker #1
Right. The 300-day rule.
Speaker #2
Let’s get into that. Under federal laws like Title VII and the ADEA, in a state like New York, you must file your claim with the EEOC within 300 days of the discrete, discriminatory, or retaliatory act.
Speaker #1
So if you file on day 301.
Speaker #2
Your claim is dead. Many of Fortman’s age discrimination claims were tossed right out the window because he waited too long to formally file with the EEOC.
Speaker #1
But wait, the documents show he was fighting this internally with the university’s HR department the entire time.
Speaker #2
He was.
Speaker #1
Are you saying that while an employee is trying to handle things professionally through internal mediation, the legal clock is just ticking down in the background?
Speaker #2
Yes. And that is one of the most dangerous traps for an employee. The legal clock does not pause just because human resources tells you they are looking into it.
Speaker #1
That is so manipulative.
Speaker #2
Plaintiffs often try to argue the continuing violation doctrine. They argue, well, the harassment was an ongoing daily pattern of abuse. So the 300 day clock shouldn’t start until the very last act.
Speaker #1
Which logically makes sense.
Speaker #2
Which logically makes sense.
Speaker #1
If you were being abused every day, it’s one big event. You think you are doing the responsible thing by letting the company’s internal process play out. And all the while, your actual legal rights are just expiring.
Speaker #2
Which is why understanding the mechanism of the law is your only real defense. You cannot wait for the company to do the right thing if it means letting your legal deadlines pass.
Speaker #1
Because they won’t.
Speaker #2
Right. And when you do file your paperwork, you must be… exhaustively thorough. You cannot assume the court will connect the dots for you later.
Speaker #1
When you step back and look at the St. John’s University case as a whole, the massive imbalance of power is glaring.
Speaker #2
It really is.
Speaker #1
You have an institutional apathy that doesn’t just allow toxic managers to survive. It allows them to thrive, to command resources, and to destroy careers.
Speaker #2
All while the bureaucracy provides them with perfect cover.
Speaker #1
Yeah. And if the employee makes a single procedural misstep, The court system shuts them out entirely.
Speaker #2
It highlights why employees must view their situation structurally rather than just interpersonally.
Speaker #1
What do you mean by structurally?
Speaker #2
Recognizing how retaliation is masked as compliance, understanding that harassment will escalate if unchecked, and knowing the unforgiving deadlines of employment law. These aren’t just abstract legal concepts.
Speaker #1
They’re survival tools.
Speaker #2
Exactly. They are the practical tools you need to survive when a workplace turns hostile.
Speaker #1
It really makes you completely rethink the structural intent of these organizations. Which leaves me with a final thought for you to consider today, based on everything we’ve unpacked.
Speaker #2
It’s an important one.
Speaker #1
If institutions are legally required to provide a safe workplace, yet they continually choose to protect high-ranking bad actors over vulnerable employees, at what point does the HR department cease to be a human resources function and become a liability management function?
Speaker #2
That is. the fundamental question every employee needs to ask themselves.
Speaker #1
Right. And if that is true, who is really managing the liability of the everyday employee?
Speaker #2
You have to do it yourself, especially before you ever sit down to write that first complaint email to HR.
Speaker #1
Thank you so much for joining us for this conversation. Remember, that safety net you think is beneath you might actually just be a mirage. Stay vigilant, stay informed, and we’ll catch you on the next one.
Speaker #0
If you like the Employee Survival Guide, I’d really encourage you to leave a review. We try really hard to produce information to you that’s informative, that’s timely, that you can actually use and solve problems on your own and at your employment. So if you’d like to leave a review anywhere you listen to our podcast, please do so. And leave five stars because anything less than five is really… Not as good, right? I’ll keep it up. I’ll keep the standards up. I’ll keep the information flowing at you. If you’d like to send me an email and ask me a question, I’ll actually review it and post it on there. You can send it to MCAReY at CAPCLaw.com. That’s CAPCLaw.com.