tisch asia ex-president pari shirazi's lawsuit against nyu

SCANNED ON 91?812012

a

Plaint iff Index. No.

-against- SUMMONS

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, JOHN SEXTON, MARY SCHMIDT CAMPBELL, and JOE JULIANO

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Venue is based on the residence of plaintiff and the principal place of business of the corporate defendant

Defendants ___I___________l_r__-----------------------------------------~--------~- X

TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANTS:

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED arid required to appear scrving answering papers in opposition to the

annexed Verified Complaint upon Plaintiff at the address stated below within the time provided by law as

noted below; upoii your failure to so answer, judgment will be taken against you for the relief demanded

i n the Complaint, togethcr with costs of this action.

NOTE:

City of New York, you must appear and answer within TWENTY days after such scrvice; or (b) If this

summons is served by delivery to any person other than you personally, or is served outside the City of

New York, or by publication, or by any means other than personal delivery to you within the City orNew

York, you are allowed THlRTY days after proof of servicc thereof is tlled with the Clerk of this Court

within which to appear and answer.

‘ I k law provides that: (a) If this suinmoiis is served by its delivery to yoit personally within the

Dated: New York, Septein ber

, New York

RILL 2% MElSEL ttoriieys for Plaintiff

Rosalind S. Fink 845 Third Avenue

i (212) 753-5599 TO: New York Ilniversity

John Sexton Mary Schmidt Cainpbcll - Joe Juliaiio

Office of the NY IJ General Counsel Elnier Holmes Bobst Library 70 Washington Square Soutli New York, NY 10012-1091 (2 12) 998-2257

Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 1 of 45

PARI SARA SHIRAZI,

Plaintiff - against -

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, JOHN SEXTON, MARY SCHMIDT CAMPBELL AND JOE JULIANO,

Index. No.

3 >. .

Index. No.

VERIFlED COMPLAINT

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff-- Pari Sara Shirazi, Ph.D. ((‘Dr. Shirazi, “Plaintiff,” or “Petitioner”), by her

attorneys, Brill & Meisel, complaining of Defendants-Respondents New York University (“NY U”), John

Sexton, Mary Schmidt Campbell, and Joe Juliano (collectively, “Defendants”), alleges as follows:

NATURE OF CLAIMS

I . Plaintiff was hired by NYU in 1981 as a Teller in the Bursar’s office, rising to Manager of the

Disbursements Office responsible for payrolls, accounts payable checks, cash disbursements, and

scholarship checks. In 1988, Plaintiff moved to Tisch School of the Arts (“TSOA”), beginning as

Rudgct Director for the film department and rising through the administrative ranks to Director of

Administration for that department, then Associate Dean for Planning of TSOA, then Vice Dean

of the school, Dean Mary Schmidt Campbell’s “second in command.” In 2007, while keeping hcr

duties as Vice Dean, Plaintiff also became President of NYlJ Tisch School of the Arts, Asia

(“Tisch Asia”) upon the establislirnent of that school.

1


e

2. Taking advantage of tuition remission, Plaintiff also earned two masters’s degrees and a Ph.L).

while working for NYU. Slic joined the faculty of TSOA in 2001 and thereafter embarked on a

numbcr of highly-regardcd projects and activities, producing plays and films, curatiiig and

participating in many symposia, panels, and film festivals, and designing many highly successful

courses and international arts programs for TSOA. With Mohammed Mchdi Khorami, she also

selected, translated and edited “Sohrab’s Wars: Counter Discourses of Contemporary Persian

Fiction,” a collection of short stories and a film script. She remained a member of thc TSOA

faculty until her termination on June 22, 2012.

3 . This case involves a smear campaign and sccret “investigations” of Dr. Shirati by Defendants,

dcsigned to blame her for President Sexton’s allegedly belated recognition of shortfalls at Tisch

Asia (despite consistent, timely provision by TSOA’s dcan to both NYU’s Provost and its

Gencral Counsel of all relevant financial information, including transfers of funds from TSOA to

Tisch Asia).

4. These actions are believed to have been taken to justify Defendant Sexton and Provost David

McLaughlin’s intention to move administrative responsibility for Tisch Asia from TSOA to the

NYU Provost’s office and its Global University, administered through that officc, thereby either

securing for the central University the anticipated future profits from establishment of a joint

under-graduatc program with the National University of Singapore or, if negotiations to establish

that program are unsuccessful, facilitating relocation of the program offerings at Tisch Asia to

programs at other NYU locations in the Far East or in Abu Dhabi.

5 . From the establishment of Tisch Asia to thc date when Dr. Shirazi was removed as head of that

school, NYU senior administrators had rejected all solutions to the school’s financial shortfall

that Dr. Shirazi, with her Dean’s support, had proposed, including the proposal for ajoint

undergraduate program with the National University of Singapore (,‘NUS”) now being negotiated

on belialf of NYU’s Global Ilniversity.

6 . After Dr. Shirazi was stripped of her titles as President of Tisch Asia and Vice Dean of TSOA,

defaniatory statements were made about her in both New Y ork and Singapore by the Dcfcndants,

all high-lcvel NYU officials, in an attempt to justify her removal and capture control of Tisch

Asia. Her attempts to clear her name by publicly refuting these allegations, including thc

unfounded claims that she had embezzled ‘I’iscli Asia funds and that die had secretly and

2


improperly transferred funds from ’ M I A to Tiscli Asia, resulted i n a scries of retaliatory actions:

she was barred from the classroom; she was not given written acknowledgement of the five-year

contract rcnewal, through the 2015-2016 academic year, to which she was entitled under

applicable NYlJ rules; the promotion recommended by her faculty, outside reviewers and her

dean was denied; and she was ultimately terminated.

7. ‘The purported basis for Dr. Shirazi’s termination was findings allegedly rcsulting from an

“investigation” which did not follow any ofNYU’s applicable rules or give Dr. Shirazi any of the

due process provided by those rulcs; most fundamentally, she was never either given notice of the

charges against her or given the opportunity to respond. During the seven months that public

charges of self-dealing and financial incompetence and misconduct were made by President

Sexton and others, Dr. Shirazi was not once either interviewed or even contacted about these

publicly-stated allegations by the persons conducting this investigation. And, when she was

finally given a statement of the “findings” forming the purported basis for her termination, each

of the findings was either provably false, or the result of inadvertent error promptly corrected, or

reflected common TSOA and/or NY U policy and practice. In sum, they were not only

insuftlcient to justify termination, but were a far cry from the reputation-destroying accusations of

the preceding seven months.

8. NYU’s actions were taken in clear contravcntion of Dr. Shirazi’s contractual rights under

applicable policies and procedures, including Title IV of the Faculty Handbook, governing

disciplinary procedures when a faculty member is accused of violating a University rule or

regulation (Ex. 1); the November 30, 2004 TSOA “Arts Professor Policy Document” (Ex. 2),

governing review, reappointment, and promotion of TSOA faculty members; and the superceding

October 12, 20 1 1 TSOA “Guidelines for Arts Professors Appointments, Renewals, Promotions.”

Ex. 3.

9. This is a hybrid plenary action and C.P.L.R. Article 78 proceeding, brought to (a) redress claims

that NYU breached its contractual obligations to Dr. Shirazi by failing to acknowledge and act in

conformity with its contractual obligation to employ Dr. Shirazi as a faculty member in TSOA

from September I , 20 1 1 through August 3 1, 201 6; failing to consider Dr. Shirazi’s request for

promotion in accordance with the procedures it was contractually obligated to follow; and by

suspending and, later, terminating Dr. Shirazi for alleged violations of its Policy and Code of

Ethical Conduct without complying with the procedures it was contractually obligated to follow

when considering charges of such violations, all in violation of Plaintiff’s contractual rights, Ncw

3


York common law and applicablc NYU rules, policies and procedures, (b) redress claims that the

individual Defendants defamed Dr. Shirazi through repeated, knowingly false statements; and (e )

seek a writ of mandamus pursuant to C.P.L.R. Article 78. Dr. Shirazi asks this Court to order

NYU to vacate the termination decision; to expunge any and all records reflecting that unlawful

decision and the findings of its improper “investigation”; to refrain from representing that Dr.

Shirazi was discharged for unethical conduct; to reinstate Dr. Shirazi to her former faculty

position; to consider the promotion recommendation made in 20 I O in compliance with applicablc

rulcs; to provide her with the ful l protections of applicable NYU policies; to take steps necessary

to clear Dr. Sliirazi’s name in Singapore; and to award her incidental damages, including but not

limited to wages and other lost benefits. Plaintiff also seeks damages and other appropriate legal

relief,

PARTIES AND VENUE

IO. Dr. Shirazi is a resident of the City and State of New York. At all relcvant times, up to her

termination, she was a full-time Associate Arts Professor at TSOA.

1 1. Defendant NYU is a leading private research university with an enrollment of over 40,000

students. It employs over 3,100 full-time faculty members. It is located in Ncw York City.

12. TSOA is one of NYU’s constituent schools. It is a leading center of undergraduate and graduate

study in the arts. Its main campus is located in New York City. It established a second campus in

Singapore -- Tisch Asia -- in 2007, which was NYU’s first degree-granting campus outside New

York City.

13. Defcndant John Sexton is and was, at all relevant times, the President of N Y U .

14. Defendant Mary Schmidt Campbell is and was, at all relevant times, the Dean of TSOA and

chairman of the board of directors of Tisch Asia.

15. Defendant Joe Juliano is the Vice Provost arid Associate Vice Chancellor for Strategic Planning

of NYU. Prior to assuming that position, he was a member of Provost McLaughlin’s office staff

in charge of global programs.

16. Venue is proper i n New York County because Plaintiff resides in New York County and NYU

and all individual Defendants maintain their principal offices in New York County. In addition,

4


all of the events giving rise to the Article 78 proceeding occurred in New York County.

FACTUAL ALLEGATJONS

Violations of Dr. Shirazi’s Riphts to Continue as a Member of the TSOA Faculty throuph August 31, 2016 and to be Considered for Reappointment Thereafter and to Fair Consideration of her Promotion Request

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

Plaintiff Shirazi was appointed to a position as Master Teacher in TSOA in 2001. In 2004,

NY U’s board of trustees ratified the TSOA Arts Professor Policy Document (“Policy Document")

(Ex. 2), which established an arts professor structure. Prof. Shirazi, along with her Master

‘I’cachcr colleagues, was given the title of Associate Arts Profcssor the following year, eligible for

reappointment to an unlimited number of consccutivc five-year terms. Persons in this title are

subject to thc same rules as, and eligible for thc same benefits as, full-time NYU faculty as set

forth in the Faculty Handbook (Ex. 2 at 2-3).

Because the Provost’s office elected to stagger the initial, comprehensive reviews of newly-

appointed Associatc Arts Professors, Dr. Shirazi came up for review in academic year 2009-2010,

with her final year under her current contract being deemed 2010-201 1.

Section IV of the Policy Document, governing revicw of Associate Arts Professors with initial

appointments, required the review process to “commence at the beginning of the penultimatc ycar

of the contract tcrm” and for “all steps of the process, including Provostial review,” to have been

completed “by the end of that academic year,” so that the Associate Arts Professor can receive

notice, no latcr than the start of the fifth year, of either renewal or non-renewal.

Following the criteria and guidelines for review in the Policy Document, Dr. Shirazi created a

“Docket” of supporting materials in Fall 2009 which was first reviewed by senior faculty

mcmbers of her department (the “Departmental Coiiimittee”). In early February, 20 10, this

committee unanimously recommended to Dr. Shirazi’s department chair that her appointment bc

rcnewed. Dean Campbell then sent Dr. Shirazi’s Docket, along with the Departmental

Committee’s report and recommendation, to the All School Promotion and Tenure Committee.

The Dcpartnicntal Committee also unanimously rccommended to Dr. Shirazi that she seck

promotion to full Arts Professor status. Following the rules sct forth i n Section V of the Policy

Document governing Arts Profcssor promotions, Dr. Shirazi consulted with her Department Chair

and the Associate Dean of Faculty, who confirmed her eligibility, and Dr. Shirazi’s Department

5


22.

I 23.

24.

25.

26.

Chair then solicited letters froin outside evaluators at prestigious institutions and sent her Docket,

with the letters, to the Departmental Arts Professor Promotions and Review Committee. I t

reviewed these materials and unanimously recommended promotion to the Department Chair,

who then forwarded Dr. Shirazi’s materials, along with its recommendation, to Dean Campbell.

At this point, both Dr. Shirazi’s renewal and promotion were considered concurrently by the All

School Promotion and Tenure Comnlittee in accordance with the rules set forth in Sections IV

and V of the Policy Document.

This committee, which is composed of TSOA faculty at the level of full Arts Professor,

unanimously recommended both renewal and promotion to Dean Campbell. Dean Campbell then

sent a summary of Dr. Shirazi’s Docket, with Dean Campbell’s own positive recommendations

for renewal and promotion, to Provost McLaughlin. By not sending thc entire Dockct to Provost

McLaughlin at this point, Dean Campbell deviatcd from the procedures set forth in the Policy

Document.

On August 4, 20 10, Dean Campbcll informed Dr. Shirazi that Provost McLauglilin had rejected

the promotion request. No mention was made of any action by Provost McLaughlin with regard

to the reappointment recommendation.

Provost McLaughlin rejected the TSOA’s promotion recommendation without considering all of

the inaterials in Dr. Shirazi’s Docket, which is contrary to the Policy Document and also to

consistent past practice when Provost McLaughlin had questions about a promotion

recommendation. Dr. Shirazi promptly wrote “fornially and officially” to Dean Campbell to

protest this decision, sending a copy of her protest to Provost McLaughlin. Ex. 4. Dean Campbell

responded that Dr. Shirazi’s complaint was “well stated,” and recommended that she filc a formal

grievance against the office of the provost. Ex. 5. After Dr. Shirazi told Dean Campbell that she

would do so if she had Dean Campbell’s “full support,” Dean Campbell askcd nr. Shirazi to

defer, because she (Dean Campbell) had formally asked Provost McLaughlin to reconsider his

decision. Ex. 6. In response to Dean Campbell’s request for reconsidcration, Provost

McLaughlin told Dean Campbell on August 16, 201 0 that his office would review his decision

during the Fall 2010 academic tcrin and requested, for the first time, a copy of Dr. Shirazi’s

Docket. Ex, 7.

Pursuant to Scction IV of the Policy Document, Dr. Shirazi was entitled to notice, on or before

6


September 1,2010, of either a 5-year appointment renewal (for the period 9/1/1 I through

813 1/16) or of non-renewal following a review:

“For Associate Arts Professors ._. the review completed by the end of the fourth year shall provide the basis for consideration of appointment renewal. In the event of an unsuccessful review, the Associate Arts Professor shall be notified of the intention not to be reappointed not later than the beginning of the fifth year of the appointment.. . I n the event of a successful review, the Associate Arts Profcssor will be asked to serve out the rcinainder of the five-year term and shall be eligible for reappointment at the end of the fifth year for another five-year term. Notification of renewal shall be givcn by the beginning of the fifth year.” Ex. 2, pp. 4-5.

27. At the beginning of Dr. Shirazi’s fifth year of appointment, she received a letter informing her of

her “status as a faculty member of TSOA as of September 1, 20 I O ” at the level of Associate Arts

Professor. Ex. 8. She did not, however, receive eithcr notification of her right to reappointment

for a new five-year term starting on September 1, 20 1 1 or notification of the intention not to

reappoint her at the end of her current term.

28. Dr. Shirazi continued to teach during the Fall 2010 and Spring 201 I terms, while periodically

asking for her reappointment letter. She was given no information whatsoever concerning the

promotion denial review being conducted by the Provost’s committee until she received a copy of

a letter dated July 15, 20 1 1 from Dean Campbell to the Provost. Ex. 9. Dean Campbell’s email

states that it is an appeal of Provost McLaughlin’s “decision in thc promotion review” of Dr.

Shirazi. It sets forth in detail the process that had been followed prior to the initial denial by

Provost Mcl ,aughlin and the unanimous recommendations for promotion at all levels of review;

questions the basis for his adverse decision; argues that the decision fails to “take into account the

definition of an Arts Professor” and therefore could “undermine future decisions throughout the

School;” recounts Dr. Shirazi’s recent academic achievements; asserts that Dr. Shirazi’s request

for promotion had been given “inadequate consideration” because of Provost McLaughlin’s

failure to consider her full Docket, which included detailed documentation of Dr. Shirazi’s

professional work and pedagogical accomplishments, and therefore violated the rules set forth in

the Faculty Handbook; and ends with thc statement that, in “accordance with the TSOA faculty

vision, we believe that [Dr. Shirazi’s] creative producing and curatorial work along with thc

program design qualify her as a senior faculty mcmbcrpar excellence.”

29. Dr. Sliirazi has never been told why Dean Campbell wrote this formal appeal eleven months after

Dean Campbell’s original e-mailed appeal or whether, at the time that it was written, Dean

7


30.

31.

32.

33.

Campbell was aware of either the work of, or any findings by, the “special committee” Provost

McLaughlin had stated to Dean Cainpbell that he was convening the prior Fall.

On August 12, 201 1, Dr. Shirazi received a letter from Dcan Campbell informing her of her

“status as a faculty member” of TSOA as of Scptember I , 20 1 1 (Ex. IO), and she continued to

teach during the Fall, 201 I semester. While this letter did not state the term of hcr reappointment,

Dr. Shirazi assumed that this letter reflected her reappointment for a five-year tcrm running from

September 1 , 20 1 1 through August 3 1 , 20 16, in accordance with the mandates of Section IV of

thc Policy Document.

On September 6,201 1 , Dean Campbell wrotc to Provost McLaughlin to inform him that Dr.

Sliirazi had won a State Department grant for a film festival showing the work of young Iranian

filmmakers and asking him to forward this information to the “special committec” he had

assembled to consider Dr. Shirazi’s requested promotion. Later that day, he responded that the

information was being forwarded to the committee. Ex. 1 I .

Following the grievance procedures in the Faculty Handbook (Ex. 12), on March 17,2012, Dr.

Shirazi appealed to President Sexton, in his capacity as Chancellor of the University, and to

Provost McLaughlin, in his capacity as Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs, the

failure to provide her with a five-year reappointment letter by September 1,2010 and the failure

to inform her of the outcome of the revicw of her promotion denial allegedly undertaken by a

committee appointed by Provost McLaughlin in Fall, 20 IO. The letter (Ex. 13), also challenged

her improper removal from the classroom by Dean Campbell on January 3 1,2012, as discussed at

paragraph 98, below. A copy of this letter was sent to Ted Magder, Chair of the Faculty Senators

Council, as this is the body responsible for hearing gricvances against a dean.

On March 29,20 12, Provost McLaughlin responded. He first stated that Dr. Shirazi’s appeal had

been improperly brought; “‘The provisions of the Faculty Handbook cited in your letter are for

appeal from a Deans’ decision on a grievance. There does not appear to be such a decision to be

appealed.” He then went on to say that the ad hoc committee he had appointed in August 20 10

had ‘Lunanimously recommended against promotion in Scptembcr, 20 I 1 .” Ex. 14. No explanation

was given at that time, or at any time thereafter, for the twelve months it allegedly took this

committee to rcach its decision or for Provost McLaughlin’s failure to inform Dr. Shirazi of this

decision for over six months aftcr it had allegedly been reached. Dr. Shirazi also has never been

given any informatian about either the composition of this committee or the basis for its alleged


recornmendat ion.

34. Dr. Shirazi forwarded Provost McLaughlin’s letter to Dean Campbell, stating that she understood

that the promotion had been denied, but asking for “clarification and official notification of [her]

current status as Arts Professor” and rcquesting a lctter confirming the term of her appointment.

Ex. IS. Dean Campbell responded that she would “get back to” Dr. Shirazi on “next steps.”

35. On April 13, 2012, Faculty Senators Council chair Magder informed Dr. Shirazi that Provost

McLaughlin had told him that (a) she was entitled to a five-year contract; (b) that Dean Campbell

was rcsponsible for, and had in fact sent, an appointmcnt letter reflecting that five-year

reappointment in September, 201 1; and (c) that he (Provost McLaughlin) had sent Dr. Shirazi a

lctter informing her of the promotion denial i n that same month. Ex. 16. Although Prof. Magder

asked Provost McLaughlin for a copy of his letter, it was never provided to Prof. Magder. Prof.

Magder subsequently told Dr. Shirazi that she had no basis for filing a further grievance on the

promotion denial. Ex. 16.

36. After hearing from Prof. Magder, Dr. Shirazi sent an email to Dean Campbell reiterating her

requcst for a formal reappointment letter. Ex. 17.

37. At a meeting with Dean Campbell, Dianc Yu, Chief of Staff and Deputy to Presidcnt Sexton, and

Ms. Casey on June I , 2012, Dr. Shirazi was told that she was not going to be permitted to

continue as a faculty member and given an agreement and release. She rcfused to sign the

agreement. On June 15, 2012, Dr. Shirazi received an email from Dean Campbell informing her

that, if she did not wish to “discuss the terms” offcred, “the university will begin to process [her]

separation as of June 22, 201 2.” Ex. 18.

38. On June 29, 20 12, Dr. Shirazi learned, through receipt of a packet of matcrials purporting to set

forth her benefits as an “NYU retiree,” that NYU had dceined her to have (‘retired’’ as of June 22,

2012. The only document indicating the date when she was unilaterally “retired” was a

memorandum from Janice Williams, Benefits Specialist, to Frank Sicignano, stating that Dr.

Shirdzi is a ‘<retired employee” eligible for membership in the NYU Athletic Facilities. This

memorandum states that Dr. Shirazi “retired” as of Junc 22, 20 12.

39. On June 29, 2012, NYU deposited $29,643.72 into Dr. Shirazi’s account, without providing a pay

stub indicating thc reason for the deposit. This amount is cqual to two months’ of net base pay.

9


40. NYU failed to provide Dr. Shirazi with the benefits to which she was entitled for the pcriod from

June 22, 2012 to September 1, 2012, includingbut not limited to medical iiisurance coverage as

an active cmployce, contribution by NY 1J to Dr. Shirazi’s retirement fund, and reimbursement of

nionics owed to her pursuant to NYll travel expense policies and promises made to her when she

vacated her Singapore apartment at NYU’s demand.

4 1 . NYU has refuscd to permit Dr. Shirazi to continue serving as a TSOA faculty member through

August 3 1, 2016 (the end date of her five-year term) or to acknowledge her right to be considered

for an additional reappointment at the conclusion of that term.

42. NYU has not paid Dr. Shirazi the compcnsation she is owed and will be owed and has not

provided her with the benefits to which she is and will be entitled, from Septcmber 1 2012

through thc conclusion of her contract tcnn, including but not limited to medical insurance

coverage as an activc employee, contribution by NYU to Dr. Shirazi’s retirement fund, and

preparation of hcr Singapore, US, and N Y tax returns by KPMG LLP, which has been rctained by

NYU to prepare tax returns of all employees whose earnings rcflect work performed i n

Singapore.

43. Had NYU not breached its contractual obligations to Dr. Shirazi, she would have served through

the end date of her current contract and, upon information and bclief, her contract would have

been renewed for successive five-year terms.

Dr. Shirazi’s Contractual Rivht to Serve as a Member of the TSOA faculty For a Five-Year Term Beginninp on September 1,2011 Under Applicable NYU Rules

44. Pursuant to Section 1V of the Policy Document, Dr. Shirazi’s positive renewal review and

recommendation by Dean Campbell in Spring 20 IO, along with subsequcnt actions consistcnt

with approving that recommendation by Provost McLaughlin and Dean Campbell, including

Dean Campbcll’s August 12,201 1 letter confirming Dr. Shirazi’s status as a faculty member as of

September 1,201 1 , entitled Dr. Shirazi to a five-year rcnewal of her academic appointment (for

thc period 9/1/1 I through 8/3 1/16):

“For Associate Arts professors ... the revicw completcd by the end of the fourth year shall provide the basis for consideration of appointment renewal. I n the event of an unsuccessful review, the Associate Arts Professor shall be notified of the intention not to be reappointed not later than the beginning of the fifth year of the appointment.. .In the event of u succesJfu1 review, the Associate Arts Professor will be usked to serve out the remainder of the)ve-yeur lerm andshall be eligible,for reuppointmeni at [he end of the fifth year for

I O


another jive-year term. N<iti@calinn of renewal shall be given by the beginning ofthefifth pw.” Ex, 2, p. 13. (emphasis added)

45. Whilc Dr. Shirazi was never provided with the reappointment letter which, undcr Scction IV of

the Policy Document, she was entitled to receive on or before September 1, 2010, the beginning

of her fifth year, this failure was ministerial. ‘Thc Provost can bc assurncd to have approved the

recornmendation for reappointtncnt based on (1) his failure to state his rejection of that

recommendation at the time that he considercd both the reappointmcnt and promotion

recommendations and rejected the promotion recornmendation; and (2) the Provost’s statement to

Ted Magder, head of the Faculty Senator’s Council, that Dr. Shirazi should have reccived a

reappointment letter from Dean Campbell in September, 201 1 .

46. Actions by Dean Campbell further show that tlie failure to send a reappointment letter was

ministerial, including (1) Dean Campbcll’s August 5, 2010 and July IS, 201 1 appeals to the

Provost of his rejection of the promotion recommendation without mention of any issue relating

to Dr. Shirazi’s reappointment as an Associate Arts Professor; (2) Dean Campbcll’s August 12,

201 1 letter confirming Dr. Shirazi’s “status as a faculty member” of TSOA “as of September 1 ,

201 I ” (tlie beginning date of her new five- year appointment term); and ( 3 ) Dean Campbell’s

failure to notify Dr. Shirazi of non-renewal or to take any steps consistent with non-renewal, as

required by Section IV of the Policy Document.

47. By failing to honor its contractual obligation to employ Dr. Shirazi as a member of the TSOA

faculty for the pcriod from September 1,20 I 1 through August 3 1,20 16, NYU breached its

obligation to Dr. Shirazi under Section IV of the Policy Document.

Violation of Dr. Shirazi’s ripht to consideration of her promotion request under applicable NYU rules I_

48. The Provost acknowledged in August, 2010, that he made his decision to deny Dr. Shirazi’s

prornotion request without considering all of the materials in her Docket, a clear violation of the

Pol icy Document.

49. Under the Policy Statement, Dr. Shirazi had the right to file a grievance based on “unfair

treatment as a result of the above processes’’ “in accordance with the departmental and school

regulations.” Dr. Shirazi has never been given a copy of thcse regulations and, in any went, Dr.

Shirazi was induced to forego a formal appeal of the denial of this decision by Dean Campbell,

who notified Dr. Shirazi on August 5, 2010 that she had, herself, requestcd “fornial

1


reconsidcration’’ by the Provost.

Although the Provost claimed to Dean Campbell and othcrs that he had convened an “ad hoc

committee” to conduct this review during the Fall, 2010 semester, Dr. Shirazi was given no

furthcr information on the work of this committee, despite repcatcd rcqucsts, unt i l March 20,

2012, when the Provost informed her that this committee had “unanimously recommcndcd

against promotion in September, 201 1.”

___

50.

5 I . Dr. Shirazi has ncver been given the names of the faculty members constituting this alleged ad

hoc committee, has never seen its report, has never been told the basis for its unanimous

rccommendation, has never known the process by which it made its rccommendation or why it

took a year to reach its recommendation, and has never been givcn an explanation for the failure

to notify her of this recommendation for over six months after it was allegedly made.

52. Upon information and belief, the Provost’s statements that he had convened an ad hoc committee

to conduct this review in Fall, 2010 and that this comrnittcc reviewed Dr. Shirazi’s “case” and

unanimously recommended against promotion in September, 20 I I are false.

Violations of Dr. Shirazi’s Contractual Due Process Rights and Defamatory Statements

5 3 . The first proposal for a TSOA campus in Singapore, presented to the Provost in 2003, included an

undergraduate program, based on due diligence on student demand in the region. Provost

McLaughlin opposed any global expansion, while the NYU Executive Vice President at thc time,

Jack Lew, and then NYU General Counscl Cheryl Mills, supported it. The resulting compromise

was establishment of a small, graduate program at the outset, with approval for addition of an

undergraduate program upon evidence that Tisch Asia could recruit a high level of students and

faculty and maintain curriculum standards.

54. From the outset of planning for Tisch Asia, it was generally acccpted that this campus would bc

subsidized until academic year 20 10-20 1 1 and that an undergraduate program would be

cstablished during this initial period to help defray costs. Work began in 2006, after approval

from thc N Y IJ Roard of Trustees, with a loan from the Economic Development Roard (EDB) of

Singapore of approximately $9.6 million, intended to cover both renovations, estimated at $3

million, and anticipated revenue shortfalls through 201 I . Howcver, despite working with thc

contractors recommended by EDB (which had also provided construction cost estimates), the

renovations in fact cost approximately $9.2 million, leaving a projected shortfall of approximately

12


5 5 .

56.

57.

58.

50.

$6 million.

This shortfall was covered through 20 1 I by funds transfers from TSOA totaling between $7

million and $8 million. Each of these transfers, which ranged from approxirnatcly $1.2 million to

$2 rnillion per year, was approved both prospectively and retrospectively by the Tisch Asia board

of directors. First, the board members, including Provost McLaughlin and NY IJ Secretaries and

Gencral Cheryl Mills and, latcr, Bonnie Brier, received annual budget projections, from board

chair Dean Mary Schmidt Campbell, which reflected thc transfers as either funds transfers or

subsidies (eg. of a part of a professor’s salary). These budget projections were discussed,

approved, and reflected in board minutes. Additionally, the board reviewcd audited reports on

actual expenses which reflected these transfers, rcparts which were signed by Dean Campbell,

also were approved by the board, and reflected in board minutes. All board minutes were taken

by local Singapore counsel, retained and supervised by the NYU gencral counsel, who also

served as secretary of the board. Actual funds transfers were done, after board approval, through

the Controller’s Division of N Y U, with one exception. Projections were approved retroactively

in 2010 because of difficulties in identifying a date to convene that was convenicnt to all board

members.

Other contributions to the shortfall, in addition to the unexpectedly high construction costs, were

a wcakened U.S. dollar, lower than expected enrollments, higher than expccted faculty and

housing costs. A Singapore tuition tax was also a problem, although it was offset through 20 16

by grants totaling approximately $6.13 million from the EDB.

Beforc this tax relief was grantcd by the EDB, Provost McLaughlin had told Dean Campbell that

President Sexton was hoping that the Singapore government would refuse to grant it, so that the

school would have to close and he could move it to Abu Dhabi. Ex. 19.

Starting in 2006, Dr. Shirazi began cxploring ways to improve the financial position of ‘Tisch

Asia. Her first effort was a proposal for ajoint undergraduate degree program with NUS, which

Provost McLaughlin rejected because he did not think that NlJS had sufficient academic standing.

Another proposal, first made in 2008 and repeated thereafter, was the establishment of a

standalone undergraduate program at Tisch Asia, modeled after a Carnegic Mellon program, to

bring i n additional revenue and address the shortfall. It anticipated hiring local adjunct faculty in

Singapore, without a connection with NUS, but was rejected by Provost McLauglin without

13


60.

61.

62 .

63.

64.

explanation.

I n the Summer of 2010, in e-mail correspondence concerning Dr. Shirazi’s work on a third

proposal, for an undergraduate program connected with NYU’s newly-established Global

Univcrsity, Defendant Linda Mills directed Dr. Shirazi to develop her proposal “using Tisch Asia

as the model for developing an undergraduate program, even if Tisch Asia in Singapore is closed

(and moves, for examplc, to Shanghai, Abu Dhabi, or elsewhere.)” Ex. 20. That proposal was

completed and sent to NYU’s Undergraduatc Commission on February 5, 201 1. The

Commission set a date of February 17, 20 1 1 to present the proposal, but President Sexton, i n an

unusual act, stopped it from going forward. Shortly thereafter, he confirmed to Dean Campbell

that he was “adamantly opposed” to an uridcrgraduate program in Singapore. Ex. 2 1. Dean

Campbell then instructed Dr. Sliirazi to remove all budget projections that relied on establishment

of an undergraduate program.

._

In January, 201 1, Dr. Shirazi began engaging in negotiations with the EDB to obtain pcrmanent

relief from the tuition tax, conversion of the EDB loan to a grant, Ex. 22, and a further grant of

approxirnatcly $3.4 million to cover anticipated shortfalls during 20 1 1-2012 and 2012-2013.

These requests were approved in principle. She also spoke with representatives of the EDB and

the Singapore Land Authority about moving the campus in 2016, when their lease was up.

I n April, 20 1 1, President Sexton traveled to Singapore, and met with EDB Managing Director

Swan Gin Beh to discuss these requests. Mr. Beh indicated that he would be receptive to

forgiveness of the loan and permanent tuition tax relief grants if N Y U agreed not to foreclose the

possibility of ajoint undergraduate program with NUS and to promise that Tisch Asia would

rcmain exclusive (Le. that TSOA would not also offer courses elsewhere in the region).

President Sexton thereafter asked NY U Vice Chancellor Richard Foley and Defendant Joc

Juliano, the Associate Vice Provost in charge of the budget, to help Dr. Shirazi and Dean

Campbell prepare a grant proposal for his signature. The proposal was to include continuation of

an on-going program run by NYU Law School, affiliation of Tiscli Asia with NUS, forgiveness

of the l’isch Asia loan and elimination of the tuition tax, and creation of a “study away” program

for NY U undergraduates at NUS. Ex. 23.

On June 8,201 1 , after further discussions between Dr. Shirazi and persons at the EDR, that

agency sent an email agreeing to consider forgiving its initial loan and providing the requested

14


grant of approximately $3-4 million to Tisch Asia upon submission of a satisfactory plan to

achieve “financial sustainability” by September 30,201 1 . Ex. 2-4.

65. In response, Dr. Shirazi prepared a “Long-Term plan proposal” (Ex. 25), which acknowledged

President Scxton’s opposition to an undergraduate program within Tisch Asia but instead

proposed what Dr. Beh had requested and what is now in fact being negotiated- ajoint

undergraduate program through affiliation with NUS. Thc proposal, sent to Dean Campbell on

September 9,20 1 1, was designcd to make Tisch Asia profitable by 20 15. It was Dr. Shirazi’s

understanding from Dr. Beh that, if this affiliation was established, he would dccm sustainability

achieved. Dean Campbell praised this effort as a “reasonable and comprehensive plan.. . Well

done” Ex. 26.

66. Other proposals made by Dr. Shirazi to address the shortfall included an NUS affiliation based

solely on provision of an artistic curriculum created by Tisch Asia faculty, retention of an outside

company for student recruitment, moving payroll to Singapore, creating continuing education

courses at Tisch Asia, using current Tisch Asia faculty to teach additional courses, with payment

at the adjunct faculty rate (avoiding the fringe benefits and housing costs associated with hiring

additional faculty mcmbers), and limiting salary increases for Tisch Asia faculty and staffto I %

for three to four years.

67. None of these proposals was accepted by NYU at the time, including the proposal to create a joint

undergraduate program with NUS, which the Singapore government had made a quid pro quo for

loan forgiveness and which was a key source of potential additional revenue. I.Iowever, upon

information and belief, NYU is now negotiating with NUS based upon this same joint

undergraduate program proposal.

68. In the Summer of201 1 , Mr. Juliano announced his plan to go to Singapore to examine the

finances of Tisch Asia in detail. Dr. Shirazi instructed her staff to answer all of Mr. Juliana's

questions and provide him with all documents requested, and both Dr. Shirazi and Gerard Bueno,

1 SOA’s senior executive director for resource planning, cooperated fully with this effort. - 3 7

69. To ensurc full coopcration of Asian staff members, Dr. Shirazi suggested that Mr. Juliana and his

staff describe their efforts as part of a five-year review of Tiscli Asia. This suggestion was

adopted whcn Mr. Juliano and Nancy Morrison, then Vice President for New Initiatives and,

Iatcr, Vice President for the Global University Network, went to Singapore from November 1 to


70.

71.

72.

73.

Novembcr 10, 20 1 1, although, unlike actual five-year reviews, this review focuscd solely on

finances. ___

A major focus of the Tisch Asia review became funds transfers between TSOA and ‘Tisch Asia.

As noted above, all such transfers had been approved by Dean Campbell, who is also chairperson

of the Tisch Asia board of directors, and by board vice chair and NYU Provost McLaughlin.

These transfers were also timely and properly disclosed to all other members of the Tisch Asia

board, including board and NYU Secretaries Cheryl Mills and, later, Bonnie Brier (who is also

the Gcneral Counsel of NYU), and all deficits and projected deficits also had been disclosed at

board meetings. Budgets for Tisch Asia that reflectcd anticipated deficits, loans from the

Singapore government, and subsidies from TSOA, were also consistently approved by the board

of directors.

As the review continued, the questions became increasingly hostile. Dean Campbell,

acknowledging the “constant assault” by Mr. Juliano and his innuendo that “there is something

wrong or renegade or worst, corrupt,” urged Dr. Shirazi to defend herself, and Tisch Asia, by

referring to her past disclosures and past agreement by members of the NYU “leadership team” to

fiscal decisions; by pointing out the Provost’s and General Counsel’s membership on the board

and the discussions, in board minutes, about the need to be self-sustaining in the long term; and

by noting the distribution of audited financial statements and the “ongoing” full disclosure of

finances. She ended by saying that “Surrender is not possible. We are in a battle ... If you don’t

give your staff encouragement to defend what has been built, it i s as if you have walked over to

the office of the provost and told hiin to take Tisch Asia. . .As dean of the school, I will be at the

front lines and will hold finn ....” Ex. 27.

That email was sent on November 8,20 1 1. On November 15,20 1 1, Dean Campbell and

Catherine Casey, Vice President of NYU for Human Resources, informed Dr. Sliirazi that she

was being removed, effective immediately, from her positions as President of Tisch Asia and as

Vice Dean of 1’SOA. Dr. Shirazi was then given an agreement which provided for her to resign

from thcse positions and agree to confidentiality and nondisparagement in exchange for a

sabbatical in 20 12-20 13 which she was already owed. The agreement did not acknowledge Dr.

Shirazi’s right to continued employment as a member of the TSOA faculty through August 3 1,

2016 or her right to be considered for renewal of her appointment thereafter.

On thc following day, November 16, 201 1, after conferring with her then-counsel, Dr. Sliirazi

16


74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

asked Ms. Casey for timc to respond, Ms, Casey rcplied that she could take until December 6, 201 1, so long as she agreed “to maintain confidentiality. .. not rctum to Singapore.. . and assist

Dean Campbell in crafting a communication.”

One day later, Dr. Shirazi notified Ms. Casey that she was willing to agree to confidentiality and

to not return to Singapore, but needed more time to think about whether she was comfortable

collaborating with Dean Campbell on a letter stating that she had resigned.

Immediately thereafter, Dean Campbell began the process of publicly removing Dr. Shirazi from

her position as head of‘I’isch Asia, calling Singapore-based members of the Tisch Asia board of

directors to ask them to attend an emergency meeting to remove Dr. Shirazi from her position as

president or to give her their proxies.

I n a conversation on November 17,201 1 , Dean Campbell told board member Meileen Choo that

Dr. Shirazi “does not know how to manage money” and that Dr. Shirazi was “not capablc of’

either negotiating with NUS to create an affiliation or of making “financially sound decisions.”

These statements werc false.

On that same day, Dean Campbell told board membcrs Jennie Chua and Erik Khoo that Tisch

Asia was “bleeding money” and it was imperative that NYU “do something urgently” to addrcss

this. She also asserted that NYU was subsidizing Tisch Asia at a rate of approximately $8 million

annually, a number created by Mr. Juliano that included internal “taxes” imposed retroactively by

him on ‘risch Asia operations. These “taxes” were improper. All services in fact used by Tisch

Asia were accounted for in the Tisch Asia budget as subsidies; the other services for which these

taxes were retroactively imposed (e.g. library services; gym facilities) were not in fact used by

Tisch Asia. Furthermore, Provost McLaughlin, Dean Campbell, Cheryl Mills and Jean Smith,

then the Chief Financial Officer ofNYU, had explicitly represented to the EDB in Singapore at

the time of Tisch Asia’s establishment that amounts that would otherwise bc owed to NYU would

be considcred contributions and shown as “subsidies” on financial statements, budgets and

projections, and there had never been any question raised about imposition of such taxes when

financial statements and projections werc reviewed by board members, including the Provost.

The board meeting convened to remove Dr. Shirazi from the presidency of Tisch Asia took place

011 November 22,201 1. The only members present were Dean Campbell (board chair), Provost

McLaughlin (vice chair of the board), and Bonnie Brier, NYU General Counsel and Secretary

17


e 0

(board secretary). None of the Singapore-bascd members of the board was available on the short

notice given to them. Upon information and belief, the only proxy-Was from one new, New-York -

based board member, who had nevcr previously attended a board meeting.

On November 23, 201 I , Dean Campbcll notified the TSOA faculty that Dr. Shirazi was “leaving”

hcr positions as president of Tisch Asia and Vice Dean to “return to thc faculty as Associate Arts

Professor.” Ex. 28. Two months later, and after one week of teaching, Dr. Shirazi was suspended

-- barred from teaching and all “other faculty duties” during “the ongoing review of Tisch Asia

Operations.” Ex. 29.

On November 30, 201 I , Linda Mills, then Vice Provost for Student I,ife, Undergraduatc

Admissions and Financial Support for NYU Abu Dhabi, and Ms. Morrison met with Tisch Asia

studcnt representatives, including Martisse Hill, presidcnt of the student council, Drew Roublick,

Mike Bolton, Liu Yang, Lorenzo fiassan, Amy Hartman, and Lia Johnson. Defendant Mills told

the group that Dr. Shirazi’s removal was necessary to ensure Tisch Asia’s financial survival and

that Nancy Morrison and Joe Juliano had come to Singapore to help “rescue” Tisch Asia.

At a meeting of the TSOA faculty in New York on December 8, 201 1 , including Arnold Baskin,

Peter Rae, Nick Tank, Rick Letvin, Randy Martin, Lazlo Santa, Rosemary Queen, David Irving,

Joe Picarcllo, Marco Williams, Lynn McVeigh, Dan O’Sullivan, Red Burns, Barbara Browning,

and others, Dr. Shirazi’s removal was discussed. In accordance with TSOA practice, this meeting

was recorded. Dean Campbell stated that Dr. Shirazi was removed because Tisch Asia is

“financially bleeding” TSOA. She also stated that she and Dr. Shirazi had different opinions

about the future of Tisch Asia, stating the Dr. Shirazi believed that the current financial picture

was not as dire as it in fact was, and that she dceply disagreed with that point of view. In an

effort to turn TSOA faculty against Dr. Shirazi, Dean Campbell stated that “Tisch Asia was

financially exposing Tisch School of the Arts,” that [flunds were transferred from New York that

1 could have used in New York to purchase canieras,~’ falsely stated that Dr. Shirazi had

transferred Tisch New York monies to Tisch Asia without approval, and falsely stated that the

situation had become so dire that shc “had to plead to the Global University, the Provost’s Office,

Linda Mills and President Sexton to intervcne,’’ after which President Sexton and Ms. Mills

“agreed to hclp out and negotiate with NUS.”

-

79.

80.

8 1.

82. After the meeting was concluded, Prof. Christine Choy asked Associate Dean for Faculty Louis

Scheeder about the amount of money improperly transferred. lie told her “$20 million.” That

18


83.

84.

85.

86.

87.

statement was false, both bccause no monies had been improperly transferred and beca

total amount transferred was in the range of $7 million to $8 inillim. - -

In an unprecedented action, the minutes of that meeting, by faculty secretary Prof. Laurent Davis,

were censored by Dean Campbell, who removed all references to the discussion of Dr. Shirazi.

(relevant exccrpt at Ex. 30). When the faculty refused to approve the redacted minutes at its next

meeting, Dean Campbell at first refused to include the redacted matcrial, but later agreed to

amend the minutes. The amended minutes (relevant excerpt at Ex. 3 1) arc still inaccurate.

On December 13, 20 1 1 , Defendant Sexton met with Dr. Swan Gin Beh, the Managing Director of

the EDB. In response to Dr. Bch’s expressed concerns, on behalf of himself and the Singapore-

based members of the Tisch Asia board of directors, about the manner and facl of removal of Dr.

Shirazi, Prcs. Sexton stated that Dr. Shirazi had contravened NYU rules on funding overseas

activities.

Later that day, Pres. Sexton met with Dr. Beh and two other Singapore-based members of the

Tisch Asia board of directors, Kwan Lui and Jennie Chua. I n response to questions about Dr.

Shirazi’s removal and the manner in which it had been carried out, Defendant Sexton repeated the

false assertion that Dr. Shirazi had transferred funds from Tisch New York without going through

required NYlJ channels or getting approval and added, “confidentially,” that Dr. Shirazi has been

using funds from Tisch Asia for her personal expenses.

On December 16,201 1, Dr. Shirazi was informed by pcrsons attending that meeting that Pres.

Sexton’s accusations of improper funds transfers and embezzlement would prevent her from ever

obtaining other cmployrnent in Singapore. This view was independently confirmed by an attorney

in Singapore, who informed Dr. Sliirazi that the only way that her name could be sufficiently

cleared would be if she brought charges against Dean Campbell and President Sexton and a court

ordered them (or they voluntarily agreed) to place an advcrtisement i n a Singapore newspaper

admitting that they had made false statements and apologizing.

On December 14, 201 1, Dean Campbell, Ms. Mills, Ms. Morrison, Mr. Juliano, John Beckman

(NYU vice president for external affairs), and Drew Uriarte (cxecutive director of ‘lisch Asia for

external affairs), met with students at Tisch Asia, including Matt Chi, Lia Johnson, Qiao Gu,

Marttise Hill, Mychael Bond, Drew Rublick, Wei Ji, Alice Ho, Lorenzo Hassan, Abigale Prade,

Shijie Tan, Gilanik Sumida Moiseff, Steplicn Small-Warner, and many othcrs. In this meeting,

19


- ..

88.

89.

90.

Dean Campbell elaborated both on the fiction that she was in Singapore for a five-year review

-and on the fictions that she-had becn-unaware of the state ofTisch Asia’sfinances and that she-

and Dr. Shirazi had differed on the way forward: “in our initial contract with Singapore EDB,

you’re required to conduct a five year rcview; as we approached the time for the five year review

1 grew increasingly concerned about the long term viability of Tisch Asia and the burden it was

placing on the New York Campus.. , .If we keep the status quo.. .there may be a threat to the

health of the programs in New York. Now I want to be very honest and open with you. On this

point Pari and I deeply disagree. She believed that in a couple of years the business structure

would be sustainable. The facts as 1 looked at them demonstrate otherwise.” In response to

questions about the decision to remove Dr. Shirazi from her role at Tisch Asia, she stated that she

and Dr. Shirazi had “deep differences about the direction of the school” and that Dr. Shirazi’s

actions were “threatening the continuity of Tiscli Asia.” When asked why Dr. Shirazi was also

removed as vice dean of TSOA, Dr. Campbell referred to Dr. Shirazi “transferring cash to the

Tisch Asia campus,” stating that there was “a whole catalog of things that we did not do in New

York” because of money being transferred to Tisch Asia,” the iniplication being that Dr. Shirazi

had transferred these funds without her knowledge and approval.

-

On that same day, the NYU representatives also met with Tisch Asia faculty, including Boris

Frumin, Sophia Wellington, Michael Burke, William Kovacsik, Pat Murphy, Gillian Gordcn,

Wendy Hammond, Wendy Bednard, Caran Hartsfield, Katherine Lindberg, Jon Hammond, Tom

Mangen, B. Mark Seabrook, Jean-Marc Gauthier, Gabrielle Kelly, Sara Cawley, Ramon

Mcnendez and others. In response to questions by Prof. Frumin, Dean Campbell admitted that

she and Provost Mc Laughlin had signed all Tisch Asia financial documents. When Prof. Frurnin

asked why Dean Campbell and the Provost still “had their jobs,” Defendant Juliano replied

“...because the way Pari presented the numbers to the Board was not only inaccurate but

misleading.” He also asserted that Dr. Shirazi had “covered up all the problerns,” had “misled the

board,” and had “presented the numbers in a way that it was not clear.”

When Prof. Frumin stated that Dr. Shirazi had been denied a ticket to return to Singapore to

collect her belongings, Dean Campbell replied that that was incorrect, that in fact Dr. Shirazi had

been provided with a round-trip ticket.

Each of the above statements by Defendant Juliano was knowingly false. Every transfer of funds

from ‘I’SOA to Tisch Asia had been approved by the members of the Tisch Asia board of

directors, including Dean Campbell and Provost McLaughlin, and audited financial statements

20


91.

92.

93.

94.

rcflecting these transfers had been signed by Dean Campbell and distributed to board members.

At the time that these traniiferswere made, thcrewere no specialrules go%iirGirig-fundiiig oT - - - -

overseas programs, and all transfers had gone through the proper channels in the NYU offices of

the Controller and Treasury.

- - -

As of the time of Dr. Shirazi’s tcrrnination, she had never scen or been made aware of any special

NYU rules governing funding of overseas programs.

Long aftcr this statement, Dr. Shirazi learned the basis for the claim about using Tisch Asia funds

for “personal expenses.” When she was in Singapore, she (and other TSOA faculty and

administrators, including Dean Campbell) used her NYU credit cards for both ‘risch Asia and

personal expenses. When she received the bills, whether in New York or in Singapore, she

promptly reimbursed NYU for all personal expcnses reflected in the bills.

The application form for Dr. Shirazi’s NYU American Express credit card (Ex.32) explicitly

acknowledged that the card could be used for personal expenses related to business travel:

“CAN I USE THE NYU TRAVEL CARD FOR PERSONAL EXPENSES? Yes, however, it is the responsibility of the Cardmember to insure timely payment to American Express and only approved University business travel and business entertainment expenses can be paid or reimbursed by the University and original receipts are always required.” Ex.32, page 2

Dean Campbell’s statement that Dr. Shirdzi’s trip to Singapore was being paid for by NYU was

also knowingly false. Following her removal as President of Tisch Asia, Dr. Shirazi asked NYU

to reimburse her for a trip to Singapore to close up her apartment and office on the Tisch Asia

campus and to address personal and professional obligations there, including dealing with bank

accounts and taking care of medical issues. This request was approved by Dean Campbell on

November 30, 201 1 (Ex. 33), but Dean Campbell rescinded this offer the next day. Ex. 34.

After learning that TSOA faculty and students had asked Dr. Shirazi to meet with them during

this trip, Dean Campbell reiterated the refusal to pay for Dr. Shirazi’s trip and barred Iicr from

attending faculty or student meetings: ‘7 want to be clear, Pari, you no longer have a role in

Tisch Asia. For that reason, it would be inappropriate for you to be part of any meetings that

occur there going forward.” Ex. 35. After intervention by an attorney tlicn rcpresenting Dr.

Shirazi, NYU agreed to pay Dr. Shirazi’s airfare on the condition that she vacate her apartment by

January 7,2012, represent, in writing, that she would not visit the campus or have any business-

related communications with staff, and delivcr all business records in her apartment. Ex. 36.

21


96.

97.

98.

99.

.&Shirazi complied with these demands, using a cornbination-Qfrnilcs and cask-to purchase an-- - -

airline ticket to return to Singapore in expectation of rcinibursement. She left on December 24,

201 1 , the first day following the end of classes. N Y U required her to vacate the apartment within

thc following twelve days, five of which were holidays. With great difficulty, she locatcd a

company to ship many of her belongings back to New York, but was unable to sell a large

amount of furniturc and furnishings, which she had to simply leave i n the apartment when she

vacated. Upon information and belief, that apartment remained vacant for approximately three

months after Dr. Shirazi left.

When Dr. Shirazi called Mr. Bueno upon her return to ask how to seek rcimbursement for her

plane ticket, she was told that all reimbursements to her were frozen. As of this date, she has not

been reimbursed for the cost of her plane ticket.

On December 15, 201 1, before Dr. Shirazi had been given permission to return to Singapore,

Defendant Juliano pressured Dr. Shirazi’s assistant at Tisch Asia to give him keys to Dr. Shirazi’s

apartment. His plan to enter this apartment without Dr. Shirazi’s permission was only derailed

after a letter from Dr. Shirazi’s then-counsel.

On January 3 1,2012, after one week of teaching, Dr. Shiraai received a letter from Dean

Campbell stating that she was “relieving [Dr. Shirazi] of all teaching or other faculty duties”

pending “the ongoiiig review of l‘isch Asia operations.’’ Ex. 37. This action was unprecedented;

upon information and belief, only faculty members accused of criminal activities have been

suspended while charges were pending.

A February 21, 2012 petition by TSOA faculty to Defendant McLaughlin (Ex. 38) raised issues

both about the failure to renew Dr. Shirazi’s contract and about her suspcnsion. On the

suspension, it stated that “. . .what is of significance to us, she has also been relieved from her

teaching duties under her Arts Professor’s status purportedly because of the above accusations

about her management of Tisch Asia.. . . Dean Campbell explaincd at a recent faculty meeting she

removed Dr. Shirazi from teaching because shc is under investigation for gross mismanagement

of Tisch Asia. We see this as two separate issues. Faculty and even Chairs liavc becn under

investigation in the past yet have remained in their teaching position. To our knowledge this is

the first time a teacher has becn rcmoved from a classroom without official charges and without

proof of any misconduct.” The faculty received an acknowledgcinent of receipt, but no

22


_ _ .-

100.

101.

102.

103.

104.

105.

substantivc response to this petition.

When Prof. Magder asked Provost McLaughlin on April 12, 2012 why Dr. Shirazi had been

suspended, he refused to answer.

-. . .- - _- - - - - - -_ - - . . - - . - -_ - __

On February 4, 2012, Richard Louth, writing on behalf ofNYU, informed the U S . Statc

Dcpartment that NYU was not willing to accept the grant that Dr. Shirazi had obtained, “due to

thc absence of the Program Director, who is presently on leave from the University.” Ex. 39.

Dr. Shirazi was not copied on this letter or notified that it had been sent. She only learned about

it scveral weeks later from the Deputy Director of the Iran Office of the U. S. Consulate in Dubai,

which had been coordinating the arrangements for the Iranian filmmakers to obtain visas to come

to the U. S. This cancellation not only resulted i n a financial loss to these young filmmakers, who

had already purchased their plane tickets to Dubai, but also damaged Dr. Shirazi’s reputation.

On Fcbruary 9,2012, at a meeting of the TSOA faculty, Dean Campbell stated that the reason Dr.

Shirazi had been removed from her classroom was that audits were underway by NYU’s Finance

Office and Office of the Comptroller which raised a number of questions. Prof. Frumin pointed

out that “no one i s ever removed from the classroom unless they have engaged in criminal acts,

and asked Dean Campbell “Is Pari a criminal?” Dean Campbell responded: “She’s under

investigation by the Controller’s Division.” In response to Prof. Fnimin’s question whether this

investigation had been concluded and findings made, Dean Campbell conceded that there had not

yet been any findings. Prof, Frumin then stated that Dr. Shirazi’s removal, under those

circumstances, was against faculty policy. Dean Campbell did not respond.

On February 24,2012, Defendants Sexton, Campbell, and Juliano, along with Ms. Mills, met

with Tisch Asia students, faculty and staff in Singapore. President Sexton stated that lie “had

been surprised at how fragile the enterprise [Tisch Asia] was.. . things werc startlingly fragile in a

way that created jeopardy to the enterprise.” He explained the removal of Dr. Shirazi from her

position as head of Tisch Asia on this “fragility,” which “niadc that decision necessary.”

President Sexton also stated that the decision to remove Dr. Shirazi was one that i s rarely taken,

falsely implying that she had engaged in severe profcssional misconduct:

“ ... clearly, Pari’s departure was sudden. Clearly that kind of thing is unusual and clearly, I’m not going to go into the details of why it happened. That would bc, 1 think, counterproductive and it would not be fair for mc to discuss the reasons why such an

23


106.

107.

108.

109.

unusual decision was rnadc .... In any case, 1 take full responsibility for that decision. I.

circumstance where something like that has happened.” . can ~mly thinkin&evcn years as p s i d e n t and fourteen years as dean ~ . O J X other-- - -

“We don’t discuss personnel matters publicly.. . I’ve made this decision. It is my rcsponsibility, listening as best I can to everyone in the community and in this case, observing a certain state of facts and having many conversations around that state of facts. to make decisions.”

“We do this in a way that it, it, it’s possible, honors the person for all the good that he or she has done but there’s only been one other example, as I say, in twenty-four years.”

Jon Hammond, a faculty member, pointed out that the advances from TSOA to Tisch Asia that

appear to be the source of the financial “fragility” of Tisch Asia had been reviewed and approved

by the ‘I’isch Asia board of directors, including both Dean Campbell and Provost McLaughlin.

1 le then asked Dean Campbell “what was in the figures that we are not allowed to see that

convinced you of this fragility and convinced you that what was a manageable debt which [Dr.

Shirazi] said would be in the black in two years and our own financial director said at a meeting

with you when you were here in December, we would be i n the black in three years. What is in

those figures to transfer that perception from a manageable debt to a financial crisis on the back

of which you have everything?”

Dean Campbell promised that “when I return on Monday I am going to return with those numbers

and I’m going to devote the entire conversation to walking you through that ... you mentioned a

very good point. You said ‘signed off and approved by the board of trustees’ and 1 will give you

also the narrative, the chronology of the board meetings and a sense of exactly what was

presented at those board meetings, which will give you a clear picture of what the board members

knew or did not know.”

When Dean Campbell met again with the group, she presented numbers, but did not present the

promised chronology or address thc information presented to board members. She also failed to

acknowledge that cvery piece of paper given to members of the ‘I’isch Asia board of directors,

including all documents with financial data, had first been personally vetted by her.

During the period from November 3,201 1 to April, 2012, Defendant Joe Juliano undertook an

investigation into the expenses connected with the development of the Tisch Asia campus. In the

course of this investigation, he reviewed all charges to Tisch Asia and made statements to

numerous people that either implied or directly stated that he was looking for financial

24


1 I O .

1 I I .

112.

113.

114.

irregularities ar poor financial decisions by Dr. Shirazi. F from NoiimEG 1 to Novem6er-l ml I, he told C a t @ r i ~ n g , D r . Shirazi’s parFtimarsistmt

at Tisch Asia, and Yong Heng Chua, director o f finances for Tisch Asia, that Dr. Shirazi had

violated NYU rules when doing construction overseas, although no rules were in fact in effect

when she was involved with the construction of the I’isch Asia campus. I-Ic also told them that he

did nol bclicvc the explanations given to him by Dr. Shirazi for the construction cost overruns; he

could not “get [his] head wrapped around these numbers; they don’t make any sense.’’ He also

demanded to see the agreements, books and invoices related to the project both from ‘Tisch Asia

and from the construction manager, Teambuild Construction Company, and from CPG

Consultants, NYU’s consultants, architects and engineers on this projcct.

plc, during a trip to Sjingapore

I n a November 8, 201 I meeting with Ng Lee Ping, a representative from CPG, Mr. Juliano falsely

statcd that the cost overruns had not been approved by NYU and that Dr. Shirazi had violated

N Y U rules regarding construction abroad. He also told Mr. Ping that he was checking to see

whether the numbers had been recorded accurately and whether prices had been inflated because

Dr. Shirazi is inexperienced.

On November 9, 201 1, Mr. Juliano repeated to Edward Ong from Teambuild that there was

“something wrong,” that he could not understand the reasons for the cost overruns, and again

stated, falsely, that Dr. Shirazi had violated NYU rules regarding construction abroad.

During meetings on February 8, 2012, Mr. Juliano and Ms. Morrison repeatedly told Mr. Chua,

Ms. Ling, and Profs. Michael Burke, William Kovasic, Gillian Gordon, and Jean-Marc Gauthier

that recorded expenses for the renovation were “vcry high,” or “unbelicvable,” or “suspicious,”

that they suspected that some expenses were not reported accurately, and that he was sure that Dr.

Shirazi had “done something fishy.”

On November 28, 201 I , Mr. Juliano asked Ms. Ling to give him all of Dr. Shirazi’s mail. He thcn

opened the bank statement for her personal account and said to Ms. Ling LLwe may find the

answer here,” pointing to the envelope. Over the course ofthe investigation, Mr. Juliano opened

Dr. Shirazi’s October, Novembcr, December, and January 20 I2 bank statements, stopping only

when she changed the address on the account to have the statements mailcd elsewhere.

Mr. Juliano directed Ms. Ling to send him or Nancy Morrison all of Dr. Shirazi’s electronic and

hard copy mail.

25


116.

117.

118.

119.

. _ On Nowmher 8,20lr, Mr- Juliana Lked-thc =personat TischA& &GO Ricardo,toprint . -

every piece of written or emailed correspondence between Dr. Shirazi and CPG, NIJS. EDR,

MICA (the Singapore Ministry of Information, Communication and Arts, and the Singapore

WDA (Workforce Development Agency).

In March, 201 2, Dean Campbell told her leadership team -- Kaiko Hays, Drew Uriarte, Louis

Scheeder, Gcrard Rueno, SheriI Antonio and Bob Cameron -- that NY U was looking into the

expenses of the rcnovation because they were L‘unusualJy high” and “a cause for worry.” Shc also

stated that they exceeded the amounts that had been “approved.” This is inaccurate; the budgeted

amounts werc always understood to be projections, not ceilings.

On May 2 1, 2012, as a result of the defamatory statements made by Defendants in Singapore, Dr.

Shirazi was removed from her position as a member of the board of directors of MediaCorp, a

Singapore corporation owning television stations, radio stations, interactive media, print and

filmmaking companies. This position had not had an end date.

During the entire period that Dr. Shirazi’s actions with rcgard to Tisch Asia finances were under

revicw, none of the persons conducting this review either informed her of the charges being

investigated or offered her the opportunity to respond. The first time she was made awarc of the

specific charges against her was at the June I , 2012 meeting where she was told that she was not

going to be pcrmitted to continue as a faculty member of TSOA. Several days later, on June 12,

2012, Dr. Shirazi received a document from Dean Campbell entitled “Dr. Pari Sara Shirazi:

llniversity Policy and Code of Conduct (‘Code’) Violations.” Ex. 40. (“Findings Statement”).

Under the heading “Personal Charges to Tisch Asia Citibank Credit Card,” the Findings

Statemcnt asserted the following:

(a) Dr. Shirazi had made unreimbursed charges of between $14,000 and $21,000. Dr. Shirazi

was never confronted with any evidence to support this “finding,” either before or after this

mecting, and denies that she failed to promptly reimburse NYU for any personal expense that she

charged IO her NYU credit card.

(b) Dr. Shirazi failed to submit receipts, thus precluding Tisch Asia from seeking reimbursement

of Singapore Goods and Services Tax. Dr. Shirazi does not understand this allegation. She

provided NYU with receipts for all purchases for which they were responsible, and reimbursed

26


120.

NY U for all personal expenses charged on her card. Whcn she asked for details at the June 1,

20 1 2 n i i g , nZie wKpioviGd. - - . - __ - -- - _ _ .- -. - -

(c ) Qr; Shirazi used the Tisch Asia credit card after being told not to do so. Dr. Shirazi denied

having received this instruction at the June 1 , 20 12 meeting and, to the contrary, assertcd that it

was cotiinion practice for faculty and staff traveling abroad on NYlJ business, including Dean

Campbcll, t o charge personal cxpenses to thcir NYU credit card and then reimburse the school.

Dean Canipbell agreed with that staterncnt.

(d) Qr. Shirazi refused to pay charges on her Tisch Asia credit card, claiming that they wcre in

licu of pcr diem payments. However. she in fact “double-dipped,” receiving per diem payments

from both TSOA and Tisch Asia, while not reimbursing Tisch Asia for her credit card charges.

Dr. Shirazi always reimbursed NYU for all personal charges on hcr Tisch Asia credit cards, no

further information was provided regarding the specific charges that she allegedly refused to pay,

and she denies ever refusing to pay for any personal charges. As she explained at the June I , 2012

mceting, the “doublc-dipping” charge presumably refers to a one-time error made by the Tisch

Asia finance director, who had improperly put in for a Singapore per diem for a trip for which Dr.

Shirazi had previously received a per diem from TSOA (from March 15 to May 12,201 l), rather

than for her I:all 201 1 trip. As soon as Dr. Shirazi discovered the error, she had reimbursed Tisch

Asia for the double payment for the Spring trip and asked for her per diem for the Fall 201 1 trip.

Ex. 4 1 . To this date she has not received that payment.

llndcr the heading “Excessive and Duplicativc Per Diems,” the Findings Statement asserted the

following:

(a) Dr. Shirazi improperly received per diems at the US. federal rate. rather than the “standard

NYU per diem” rate. Dr. Shirazi denies that there was any “standard NYU per diem rate” other

than the L J S . federal rate posted on the NYU website under rules and regulations for NY U travel.

Dr. Shirazi explaincd at the June I , 201 2 mceting that this rate had been approved by the NYl l

Controller’s Office for the entire 24 years of her affiliation and that it was routincly used by

faculty. More specifically, Mr. Bueno had received permission from Randy Green, then-

Controller of NY U, in 2009 to reimburse Plaintiff via pcr diems based on the U S . State

Department rate rathcr than expense reimbursements because of dollar fluctuations during her

trips and the amount of time it took for Mr. Bueno’s and Mr. Green’s staff to convert each of her

27


I rweipts to dollars. After the June 1 20.12 meeting, NY U removed the U.S. State Department ~

-- - - - - - __ __ .- - -. _- - -. . __ .

travel pcr diem guidelines from-the webs iE7

(b) Dr. Shiraz~i improperly received per diems for tirnc during NYlJ winter breaks. Dr. Shirazi

denied, and continues to deny, that there was any impropriety in receiving per diems for days

worked in Singapore which were holidays on the U.S. campus. Tisch Asia did not close on these

days, Dr. Shirazi was working on these days, and a per diem was therefore appropriate.

(c) Dr. Shirazi requested reimburseinent for business meals on days when she also took a per

- diem, without subtracting the cost ofher meals. It i s not the case that reimbursements wcre

requested. What this allegation refers to is Dr. Shirazi not reimbursing NYU for her portion of

rncal expcnses charged on her NYlJ credit card for meals relating to fundraising or other NYU

business. As she explained at the June 1 , 201 2 meeting, this failure to deduct was never

identifled as an issue throughout Dr. Shirazi’s tenure at NYU. At no time during in her six years

heading thc N Y U Disbursements office, or her six years of responsibility for the Film Department

budget, or her sixteen years of responsibility for the TSOA budget, was she ever advised to net

out these costs or to ask other faculty or administrators submitting expense reports relating to

business meals to net out these costs.

(d) Dr.Shirazi prevented the Tisch Asia Finance Director from contacting his TSOA counterpart

to discuss her request for retroactive per diems, telling him that, instead, she would seek

permission for these per diems from Dean Campbell. She then reauested a letter authorizing

allocation of a “discretionnrv fund” for her Tisch Asia work under “misleading circumstances,”

using the letter to authorize the Tisch Asia per diems. Dr. Shirazi denies these allegations. As shc

explained on June 1 , 2012, the letter (Ex. 42) in question related to the planned transition to Tisch

Asia (from TSOA) of expenses previously covered by TSOA, including Dr. Shirazi’s ‘Tisch Asia-

related expenscs. lt was written to explain to the auditors who would be reviewing the Tisch Asia

budget the reason for this new expense line, which was intended to cover expenses including

travel, entertainment, faculty emergency needs, and purchase of equipment or furniture.

121. Under the heading “Tisch Asia Financial Status,” the Findings Statement asserted that Dr. Shirazi

intcntionally withheld information about thc financial status of Tisch Asia from various NYlJ

offices in order to “mislead them about the financial condition of the school.” Dr. Shirazi denies

this allegation.

28


Specific assertions ofalleged wmngdoing weKe as fdlaws:.

(a) Qr. Shirazi instructed the Tisch Executive Director for Financc and Administration to

withhold information from the NY U Budget Office regarding transfers of “millions of dollars:

from TSOA. Dr. Shirazi denied, and continues to deny, this allegation; to the contrary, all

transfcrs from TSOA to Tisch Asia were in fact reported.

_ _ ~ - - - -- __ - __ - - - -

(b) Dr. Shirazi directed that program fees paid by students in programs other than Tisch Asia bc

- used to cover l’isch Asia’s shortfall. This is correct, but was not improper. As was pointed out in

the June 1,20 12 meeting, moving funds among programs was part of Dr. Shirazi’s rolc as vice

dean, and transfers among TSOA funds was commonplace. For example, Dr. Sllirazi devised

several programs that brought in extra income (above projected inconie in the TSOA budget),

including an “open arts” program and multiple international programs. Funds from these cfforts

covered, for example, the deductible when the roof of the TV studio came down and equipment

needed repair, unbudgeted renovations to the film department space, decreasing the number of

graduate design students, and hiring additional faculty and staff.

(cj Dr. Shirazi did not deliver letters prepared by TSOA’s outside auditors to the Tisch Asia

board of directors which pointed out internal control failures. This allegation was not raised

during thc June 1 meeting; Dr. Shirazi was unaware of it until she received the Findings

Statement. As for the allegation itself, Dr. Shirazi never saw the letters in question. The auditors

discussed their findings with Dean Campbell, and she never either showed auditors’ letters to Dr.

Shirazi or asked Dr. Shirazi to forward them to the board. Furthermore, all materials presented to

the board were personally reviewed by Dean Campbell; Dr. Shirazi never sent anything directly

to the board mcmbers.

(d) Dr. Shirazi failed to “provide guidance and explanation as to how the financial proiections for

Tisch Asia were formulated or why the proiections were not achieved” to Defendant Juliano

during his investigation. This allegation also was not mentioned during the June 1 meeting or at

any prior time, and it is not accurate. Dr. Shirazi spent many hours responding to Mr. Juliano’s

questions, instructed her staff to do the same, and at no time attempted to deceive or mislead him.

(c) Dr. Shirazi failed to give Mr. Juliano information he needed, including the amount of

subsidics from TSOA to Tisch Asia and the sources of TSOA funding. ’I’his also is false. Mr.

Juliano was given board minutes showing these transfers and all other documents he rcquested.

29


~~ ~ ~ .. . _ _ I _ _ * x ” . ~ - - ~ ~ 122. --Nastnatableabout thesCfindsc.s”is-not only _theirpeiTiness and inaccmy+but_the c o q k -

absence of any “findings” related to the b‘financial mismanagement,” ernbezzlemcnt and

kickbacks alluded to, or outright stated, publicly, by Defendants Sexton, Campbell, and Juliano.

123. This is not surprising. Upon information and belief, audits of Tisch Asia financos by NYU’s

Controller’s Division and by its Office of Compliance both confirmed that there had been no

misconduct by Dr. Shirazi.

Violations of Dr. Shirazi’s contractual due process riphts

124. The Policy Document states that “[dluring the time of their employment by New York

University, all arts professors are subject to the same rules, regulations, obligations and benefits

afforded full-time NYU faculty members, as described in the Faculty Handbook of New York

University, and the adopted regulations and procedurcs of the Tisch School of the Arts, except

that they are not eligible for tenurc or membership in the Faculty Senator’s counsel. These rights

and duties include, but are not limited to: academic frcedom; teaching assignments.. .” Ex. 2, pp.

2-3.

125. The 201 1 TSOA Guidelines for Arts Professors: Appointments, Renewals, Promotions

(“Guidelines”), (Ex. 3), which superceded the Policy Document, reiterate that rights, including

procedural guarantees, given to full-time faculty members under the Faculty Handbook are also

granted and given to Arts Professors:

“New York University policies, particularly those in the Faculty Handbook, as well as Tisch policies and procedures, include policies, rules and procedures applicable to full-time non- tenure track faculty, including Arts Professors. Arts Professors have the same rights and responsibilities as full-time NYU faculty members, with the exceptions that Arts Professors are not eligible for tenure or membership on the Faculty Senators Council. Among the rights and responsibilities of Arts Professors are, without limitation, academic freedom, teaching assignment.. . .and the ethical obligations, academic responsibilities and behavioral standards of faculty membcrs.” Ex. 3, para. 1.3, page 1 .

126. Dr. Shirazi, as an Associate Arts Professor, therefore had those rights granted to non tenure-track

faculty in the Faculty Handbook (“Handbook”).

127. N Y U has repeatedly recognized its obligation to follow thc policies set forth in the Handbook.

For example, the Handbook states that “policy statements and procedurcs forn-rally adopted by the

Board of Trustecs” have a “controlling effect throughout the University.”

30


- - - -1 2 8 , T i t l a o f&e Em 1 ty Haffdbok$S emral .l)isuipli q R e g u l a t i onsAp p licable to40 t hTcn u r d

and Non-Tenured Faculty Members” (“Disciplinary Regulations”), Ex I , sets forth detailed

procedures to be followed “where a question arises concerning an alleged violation by any

member of the faculty of a rule or regulation of the University.” Disciplinary proceedings under

this Title begin with the filing of a coinplaint. Summary suspension is permitted “pending

investigation and hearing,” but is recognized as an “extraordinary remedy,” to be taken only when

“necessary in the interest of the University co~nmunity.’~ Efforts at informal resolution, under the

direction of the dean of the faculty member’s school, are then required. If they do not succeed,

the matter “shall” be referred to the Chairpcrson of the Faculty Council, who “shall” appoint a

special committce, the majority of whom arc to be faculty members in the school of thc accused

faculty member. After conducting its hearing according to rules it adopts, this committee has the

authority to iinpose a range of penalties for violations of NYU rules and regulations, with

dismissal recommendations requiring approval by thc dean, the President (in his role as

Chancellor) and the Exccutive Vice President for Academic Affairs (the Provost),

129. Appeal from a hearing committee decision may be taken to the President based on a claim “that

the decision was not supported by substantial evidencc in the record taken as a whole” or that

“the proceedings were not conducted in substantial compliance with the principles enunciated” in

the Disciplinary Regulations. On appeal, the President niay affirm or reverse the hearing

committee’s decision, remand for ricw or further investigation by the same or a different

committce, or increase or decrease the sanction imposed.

130. Although Dean Campbell publicly stated that the decision to suspend Dr. Shirazi was based on an

“investigation” of accusations of “gross mismanagement of Tisch Asia” and told Dr. Shirazi that

thc decision to terminate her was based on alleged findings that she had violated the University’s

Policy and Code of Ethical Conduct, the “extensive investigation” cited in support of thcse

decisions failed in all respects to follow the procedures set forth in The Disciplinary Regulations

of the Handbook, and the termination decision was not the required product of a hearing

committee acting by majority vote.

I3 I . Dr. Shirazi was never shown any complaint tiled against her. No efforts were made at any time

to “resolve the matter informally.” The matter was never referred to the Chairperson of the

Faculty Council arid a special committee of the faculty, the majority of whom were to be from

‘I’SOA, was ncver appointed by him (a “duly constituted committee”) to consider the charges

31


.

being secretly investigated.

As a result of these violations, Dr. Shirazi’s suspension was not the product of a “pending

investigation” conducted in accordance with the Disciplinary Kegulations, the charges against her

were never presented to or considercd by a duly constituted committee, she was never given the

opportunity to respond to the charges against her, and her dismissal was nevcr recommended by a

duly constituted committee.

-- .- ._ - - - -. - -- -- -

132.

133. Because of these violations of Dr. Shirazi’s contractual rights, the appeals process set forth i n the

Disciplinary Rcgulations - appeal of a “decision by the hcaring committee” -- was unavailable to

Dr. Shirazi. ‘There was no decision from a hcaring committee, no record indicating the evidence

on which the decision had been based, no ‘cprocecdiiigs” at all, simply a star chamber

“investigation” leading, first, to suspcnsion, and then to termination.

Dr. Shirazi has exhausted available administrative remedics.

134. Despite the lack of any proceedings, or record, on which to challenge Dean Campbell’s letter

suspending her, Dr. Shirati in fact tried to challenge this decision by appealing it to the Provost.

This effort was unsuccessful; he rejected her appeal without considering it, stating that she should

first have appealed to Dean Campbell (despite Dean Campbell having made the decision in

question, so following that step would have been futile.).

135. Dr. Shirazi also attempted, unsuccessfully, to challcnge the Provost’s rejection of her promotion

request. Her initial effort was sidctracked by Dean Campbell,, who advised Dr. Shirazi to defer

any challcnge pending resolution of the Dean’s own request for reconsideration. At the point

where Provost McLaughlin informed Dr. Shirazi of the result of his review, Dr. Shirazi was

informed by ‘Ted Magder, the head of the committee to whom appeal would have been taken, that

further review was not possible.

136. For the reasons set forth in paragraph 133, above, no appeal was possible from the termination

decision .

Imnact of the Defamatory Statements

137. As a result of the defamatory statements by the Defendants, Dr. Shirazi’s reputation has been

severely harmed. She has been asked outright by members of the NYU faculty whether she acted

32


138.

139.

140.

As a result of the defamatory statements by the Dcfendants, Dr. Shirazi was removed from her

position as a member of the board of directors of MediaCorp, a Singapore corporation, resulting

in both economic and reputational damage.

As a rcsult of the defamatory statements by Dcfendants, Dr. Shirazi’s reputation in Singapore has

been severely harmed, and, upon information and belief, shc will be unable to secure future

employment in Singapore, thus resulting in fiiture economic losses.

As a result of the defamatory statements, Dr. Shirazi suffers from depression and severe anxiety,

with insomnia and panic attacks. Moreover, these statements have led to a sense of worthlessness

and loss of professional identity, which had been kcy to her fcelings of self-identification and

self-worth.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION against Defendant NYU Rreach of Plaintiffs contractual right to continued employment

141.

142.

143.

144.

145.

146.

147.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 to 140 of this Complaint and Petition as if fully set

forth herein.

Plaintiff was contractually entitled to employment as a member of the TSOA faculty for a period

of fixed duration, from September 1,201 1 through August 3 I , 201 6, and to consideration for

reappointrnent to another term of fixed duration at the conclusion of this tcrm.

NYU breached its contractual obligation to ernploy Plaintiff as a member of the TSOA faculty

from September I , 201 1 through August 3 1,2016, NYU by terminating Plaintiffs employment

prior to the conclusion of the employment term.

Plaintiff fulfilled all of her contractual obligations and was ready, willing and able to continue to

do so through the remainder of her current contract term.

Plaintiff was terminated without just cause.

Upon information and belief, Plaintiff would have becn offered reappointment to a further fixed term at the conclusion of her current term.

Plaintiff has suffered damages and injury as a result of NYU’s breach.

33


.- -_- -~~ -SFLDND CAUSE O F A C ~ a g a u . mefendant NY U __ ~ __

Breach of Plaintiffs contractual right to consideration of her promotion request pursuant to rules set forth in the Policy Statement

148.

149.

150.

151.

152.

153.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs I to 140 and 142 to 147 of this Complaint and Petition

as if fully set forth herein.

Plaintiff was contractually entitled to consideration of all of the materials in her Docket by

Provost McI.aughlin when he was considering her promotion request.

Dean Campbell’s failure to submit Plaintiffs Docket to Provost McLaughlin and Provost

McLaughlin’s failure to review the materials in her Docket prior to rejecting Plaintiffs promotion

request breached NYU’s contractual obligation to Plaintiff.

Upon information and belief, no “ad hoc” committee appointed by Provost McLaughlin in fact

reviewed Plaintiffs Docket in response to Dean Campbell’s request for reconsideration of that

decision.

N Y U breached its contractual obligation to consider Plaintiffs promotion request pursuant to the

rules set forth in the Policy Statement.

Plaintiff has suffered damages and irijury as a result o f N Y U ’ s breach.

TI-IIKD CAUSE OF ACTION against Defendant NYU Breach of Plaintiffs contractual right to consideration of thc charges against her pursuant to rules set forth in the Faculty I-landbook

154. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs I to 140, 142 to 147, and 149 to 153 of this Complaint

and Petition as if fully set forth herein.

155. The Faculty Handbook sets forth dispute resolution procedures, “General Disciplinary

Regulations Applicable to Both Tenured and Non-Tenured 1:aculty Members,” (“Disciplinary

Regulations”) which are to be followed when a “question arises concerning an alleged violation

by any member of the faculty of a rule or regulation of the University.”

156. ‘I’he purported basis for Plaintiffs suspension was the pendency of chargcs that she had violated

34


~ N Y U’s Policy and Code of Miical Canduct, and the purported basis for Plaintiff’s termination . . . -- .- .- .. - . . ._ was tindings of v i o l a t 5 i o t this Pol~cy andCode..

157.

158.

159.

160.

161.

162.

163.

164.

165.

Under the Faculty Handbook, the Arts Professor Policy Document, and the Guidelines for Arts

Professors Appointments, Renewals, Promotions (the “Governing Documents”), Plaintiff was

contractually entitled to consideration of the charges against licr pursuant to the dispute resolution

procedures set forth in the Disciplinary Regulations.

By failing to follow these contractually-mandated procedures, Plaintiff was deprived of the right

to be shown a copy of the complaint against her.


to attempted informal resolution of the complaint.

Ry failing to follow these contractually-mandated procedures, Plaintiff was deprived of the right

to have the charges against her considered by a Committee composed of faculty members

appointed by the Chairperson of the Faculty Council, the majority of whom were to have been

from TSOA (“duly appointed faculty committee”).


to have her suspension reviewed by a duly appointed faculty committee.


to respond to the charges against her in a hearing conducted by a duly appointed faculty

conim i ttee.


to a determination of whether she had violated NYU’s Policy and Code of Ethical Conduct by a

duly appointed faculty committee.

Under the Governing Documents, decisions to terminate non-tenured faculty members for

violation of NYU’s Policy and Code of Ethical Conduct must be the product of a duly appointed

hculty committee, acting by majority vote after conducting a hearing to deterniine whether the

charges should be sustained.

Plaintiffs termination was not the product of a hearing by a duly appointed faculty committee,

acting by majority vote after conducting a hearing to determine whether the charges should be

35


.- -- -- -~ - ~ - ~ -

166. By failing to follow these contractually-mandated procedures, Plaintiff was deprived of the right

to appeal her contractually-invalid termination.

By terminating Plaintiffs employment prior to the conclusion of her employment term based on

Plaintiffs alleged violations of NYU’s Policy and Code of Ethical Conduct without following the

procedures set forth in the Disciplinary Regulations, NYU breached its contractual obligation to

Plaintiff.

167.

I 168. Plaintiff has suffered damages and injury as a result of NYU’s breaches.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION against all Defendants Defamation

169. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 to 140, 142 to 147, 149 to 153, and 155 to 168 of this

Complaint and Petition as if fully set forth herein.

170. The statements by Dean Campbell that NYU was subsidizing Tisch Asia at a rate of

approximately $8 million annually (1 77); that Dr. Shirazi had transferred Tisch New York

monies to Tisch Asia without approval and that the situation had become so dire that she “had to

plead to the Global University, the Provost’s Office, Linda Mills and President Sexton to

intervenc,” after which President Sexton and Ms. Mills “agreed to help out and negotiate with

NUS” (7 81); that she had been unaware of the state of Tisch Asia’s finances and that she and Dr.

Shirazi had “deep differences about the direction of the school” (7 87); and that N Y U was

looking into the expenses of the renovation because they excecded the amounts that had been

“approved” (7 1 16) were false.

17 1. The statements by Dean Campbell that Dr. Shirazi “does not know how to manage money” and

that Dr. Shirazi was “not capable of’ either negotiating with NUS to create an affiliation or of

making “financially sound decisions” (7 76); and that Dr. Shirazi’s actions were “threatening the

continuity of I’isch Asia” (1 87) falsely implied thc existence of undisclosed, detrimcntal facts.

172. The statement by Dean Campbell that the reason Dr. Shirazi had bccn removed from her

classroom was that audits wcre underway by NYlJ’s Finance Office and Office of the

Comptroller which raised a number of questions, coupled with her response -- “She’s under

investigation by the Controller’s Division” -- to Prof. I:rumin’s statement that “no one is ever

36


removed froin the classraom unless they have engaged in criminal acts and his question whethcr

Dr. $hirazT“‘is a crimiKar’(7 88),togetherfalsely implied the existcncc ot undisclosed

detrimental facts.

.~ _.

173.

174.

17s.

176.

177.

The statements by Dean Campbell that Dr. Shirazi was removed from her administrative positions

at Tisch Asia because of “transferring cash to the Tisch Asia campus,” coupled with thc statement

that there was “a whole catalog of things that we did not do in New York” because of moncy

being transfcrred to Tisch Asia,” (7 87) falsely implied that Dr. Shirazi had transferred these

funds without the Dean’s knowledge and approval.

Dean Campbell’s response to Jon Hammond’s statement that the advances from TSOA to ‘lisch

Asia that appeared to be the source of the financial “fragility” of Tisch Asia had been reviewed

and approved by the Tisch Asia board of directors, including both Dean Campbell and Provost

McLaughlin -- “YOU mentioned a very good point. You said ‘signed off and approved by the

board of trustees’ and I will give you also thc narrative, the chronology of the board meetings and

a sense of exactly what was presented at those board meetings, which will give you a clear picture

of what the board members knew or did not know,” -- (1 107) falsely implied the existence of

undisclosed detrimental facts.

The statements by Defendant Sexton that Dr. Shirazi had transferred funds from Tisch New York

without going through required NYU channels or getting approval and that she had been using

funds from Tisch Asia for her personal expenses (1 85) were false.

The statements by Defendant Sexton that he “had been surprised at how fragilc the enterprise

[Tisch Asia] was.. .things were startlingly fragile in a way that created jeopardy to the enterprise”

and his explanation of the removal of Dr. Shirazi from her position as head o f Tisch Asia was a

result of this “fragility,” which “made that decision necessary,” (7 104) falsely implied the

existcnce of undisclosed detrimental facts.

The following statements by Defendant Sexton (11 105) falsely implied the existencc of

undisclosed, detrimental facts:

“ ... clearly, Pari’s departure was sudden. Clearly that kind of thing is unusual and clearly, I’m not going to go into the details of why it happened. That would be, I think, counterproductive and it would not be fair for me to discuss thc reasons why such an unusual decision was made .... In any case, I take full responsibility for that decision. I can only think in my eleven years as president and fourteen years as dean of one other

37


178.

179.

1x0.

181.

182.

183.

~ circumstance-where sorneihing like tbathas bppstsned.”_ . _- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

“We don’t discuss personncl matters publicly.. . I’ve made this decision. It is my responsibility, listening as best I can to everyone in the community and in this case, observing a certain state of facts and having many conversations around that state of facts, to make decisions.”

“We do this in a way that it, it, it’s possible, honors the person for all thc good that he or she has done but there’s only been one other example, as I say, in twenty-four years.”

The statements by Defendant Juliano that that “the way Pari presentcd the numbers to the Board

was not only inaccurate but misleading,” and that Dr. Shirazi had “covercd up all the problems,”

had “misled the board,” and had ‘<presented the numbers in a way that it was not clear” (7 88);

that Dr. Shirazi had violated NYU rules when doing construction ovcrseas (111 109, 1 I O and 1 I I ) ,

and that that overrun that had not been approved by NYU (7 110) were false.

The statements by Defendant Juliano that he did not believe the explanations given to him by Dr.

Shirazi for the construction cost overruns (7 f 109 and 112); that he could not “get [his] head

wrapped around these numbers; they don’t make any sense (7 109) that recorded expenses for the

renovation were “very high,” or “unbelievable,” or “suspicious (1 112);” that he suspected that

some expenses were not reported accurately, and that there was “something wrong,” because he

could not understand the reasons for the cost overruns (f 1 1 I), and that he was sure Dr. Shirazi

had “done something fishy” (f 112) falsely implied the existence of undisclosed detrimental facts.

On information and belicf, the foregoing statements were made with malice and with knowlcdge

of their falsehood, or with reckless disregard for the truth, or with knowledge of their false

implication of the existence of undisclosed detrimental facts.

The foregoing statemcnts were defamatory per se because they impeach Plaintiff in her trade or

profcssion.

The foregoing statements were made while acting within the scope of Defendants Sexton,

Campbell, and Juliano’s authority as the Defendant NYU’s cmployees. NYU is therefore liable

for their statements.

Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable injury, emotional distress, mental

anguish, humiliation, monetary damage, and damage to hcr professional reputation as a result of

the Defcndants’ dcfarnatory actions.

3s


FETH CAUSE 01: ACTLUN-against Defendant N Y U ~ ~ . _ ~ . . _. - - - Arhrary, capncluusamhulau&Lactians.cantraiyto- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

NYU rules and rcgulations; failure to comply with applicablc procedurcs concerning Petitioner’s appointment renewal.

184.

185.

186.

1x7.

188.

189.

190.

191.

Petitioner repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 to 140, 142 to 147, 149 to 153, 155 to 168, and 170

to I83 of this Complaint and Petition as if fully set forth herein.

‘Thc Policy Document sets forth procedures to bc followed when considering appointment

renewals for Associate Arts Professors.

Petitioner fulfilled all of her obligations pursuant to the Policy Document.

Pursuant to the Policy Document and in accordance with actions taken by the Departmental

Committee, Dr. Shirazi’s Department Chair, and the All School Promotion and Tenure

Committee, and in accordance with actions taken and statements made by Provost McLaughlin

and Dean Campbell, Petitioner was cntitled to written notice of her eligibility for reappointment

for a fivc-year term commencing on September 1,2001.

NYU acted in an arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful manner, as set forth above, by failing to

notify Petitioner of her eligibility for reappointment for a five-year term commencing on

September 1,20 1 1.

Pursuant to the Policy Document and in accordance with actions taken by the Departmental

Committee, Dr. Shirazi’s Department Chair, and the All School Promotion and Tenurc

Conitnittee, and in accordance with actions taken and statements made by Provost McLaughlin

and Dean Campbell, Petitioner was entitled to written notice of renewal of her appointment for a

five-year term commencing on September 1,201 1 by the beginning of her fifth year of

appointment, or September I , 20 10.

NYU acted in an arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful manner, as set forth above, by hiling to

provide Petitioner with written notice of the renewal of her appointment for a five-year term

commencing on September 1, 201 1 by the beginning of her fifth year of appointment, or

September I , 20 10.

By tcrrninating Petitioner for breach of NYU rules and regulations during her fixed, five-year

term appointment without cause and without affording her thc due process rights to which shc

39


WLS entitled under thc Qisciplinary Regulations, N Y U failed to c ~ m p l y with the reappointment .- -- -. ._-

rules and regulations set forthnthePolicyD~neKnGdinan 5 t r a F a p r i c i o i i i i d - -

unlawful manner

192. Petitioner has suffered damages and injury as a result of NYU’s actions.

193. Under C.P.I..K. Article 78, an order and judgment should be issued ordering NYU to issue a letter

to Petitioner acknowledging her right to continued appointment as an Arts Professor from

September 1,20 I 1 through August 3 I , 20 16 and her right to be considered thereafter for

successive appointments in accordance with then-applicable NYU policies; to vacate its

termination of Petitioner’s appointment on June 29,2012; to expungc any and all records

reflecting that unlawful decision; to reinstate Petitioner to hcr position as an Associate Arts

Professor; to provide her with the full protections of its Disciplinary Policies; and to award her

incidental damagcs, including but not limited to wages and othcr lost benefits.

S I X l H CAUSE OF ACTION against Defendant NYU Arbitrary, capricious. and unlawful actions contrary to NYU rules and regulations; failure to comply with applicable procedures concerning Petitioner’s application for promotion

194.

195.

196.

197.

198.

199.

200.

Petitioner repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 to 140, 142 to 147, 149 to 153, 155 to 168, 170 to

183, and I85 to 193 of this Complaint and Petition as if fully set forth herein.

The Policy Document sets forth procedures to be followed in considering the application of an

Arts Professor for promotion.

Petitioner fulfilled all of her obligations pursuant to these procedures.

NY U failed to follow the required procedures in considering Petitioner’s promotion request.

NY U acted i n an arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful manner by rejecting Petitioner’s rcquest for

promotion without following the required procedures.

Petitioner has suffered damages and injury as a rcsult of NYU’s actions.

Under C.P.L.R. Article 78, an order and judgment should be issued ordering NYTJ to consider the

promotion recommendations made in 2010 in compliance with applicable rules and to award her

incidental damages, including but not limited to wages and other lost benefits.

40


- _ _ ~~ ~

c E V E N T W S E O ? O u a i n s t D-.NYL- ~. ~ .- -

Arbitrary, capricious. and unlawful actions contrary to N Y U rules and regulations; failure to comply with applicable procedures governing charges that a faculty member has violated NYU rules or regulations

201.

202.

203.

204.

205.

206.

207.

208.

209.

210.

Petitioner repeats and realleges paragraphs I to 140, 142 to 147, 149 to 153, 155 to 168, 170 to

183, 185 to 193, and 195 to 200 of this Complaint and Petition as if fully set forth herein.

NYU’s Disciplinary Regulations set forth procedures for addressing allegations of failure by a

faculty member to comply with NYU rules and regulations, incuding violations of NYU’s Policy

and Code of Conduct.

Thc Disciplinary Regulations permit a faculty member to be suspended “pending investigation

and hearing” of charges of violation of an NYU rule or regulation when deerncd necessary “in thc

interest of the University community.”

Petitioner was suspended pending “the on-going review of Tisch Asia operations.”

The “review” that was the purported basis for Petitioner’s suspension was not conducted in

accordance with the procedures set forth in the Disciplinary Regulations.

Neithcr at the time of Petitioner’s suspension nor at any time thercafter was there an investigation

or hearing of the charges against Petitioner in accordance with the procedures set forth in the

Disciplinary Regulations.

In summarily suspending Petitioner without following any of the procedures set forth in the

Disciplinary Regulations for handling charges of violation of NYU rules and regulations, NYU

actcd in an arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful manner.

The Disciplinary Regulations require decisions to terminate a faculty member for violation of an

NYU rule or regulation to be made upon the recommendation of a duly appointed faculty

committee, acting by majority vote after conducting a hearing to determine whether tlie charges

should be sustained.

No duly appointed faculty committee was ever appointed to hear the chargcs against Petitioner.

No hearing was ever conducted by a duly appointed faculty committce to dctermine whether tlie

charges against Petitioner could be sustained.

41


- x _ ___I .~

- ~ 7 1 - 1 A s i u r n m d y t & a ~ q + P e t i t i ~ r i ~ l & f M x e ~ appaLitmeutforWiolatians - -

of the N Y IJ Policy and Code of Conduct without following any of the proccdures set forth in the

Disciplinary Regulations for handling charges of violation of NYU rules and regulations, NYU

acted in an arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful manner.

212.

213.

214.

215.

Petitioncr has suffered damages and injury as a result of NYlJ’s actions.

Under C.P.L.R. Article 78, an order and judgment shoiild be issued ordering NYU to vacate its

termination of Petitioner’s appointment on June 29, 2012; to expunge any and all records

reflecting that unlawful decision; to reinstate Petitioner to her position as an Associate Arts

Professor for a tcrin ending on August 30, 20 16 and subject to further renewals under the rules

and regulations then i n effect; to provide her with the full protections of its Disciplinary Policies;

and to award her incidental damages, including but not limited to wages and other lost benefits.

There has been no previous application for the relief requested herein.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff-Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court grant the following relief:

(a) enter judgment against Defendant NYU for damages for breach of contract in an amount to be determined;

(b) enter judgment against Defendant NYU to make Plaintiff-Petitioner whole for all compensation and benefits she would have received through August 3 I, 2016 but for her improper termination;

(c) enter judgment against Defendant NY U to make Plaintiff-Petitioner whole for all compensation and benefits she would have received upon renewal of her contract at the conclusion of her currcnt contract term;

(d) declare that the acts complained of constitute unlawful defamation;

(e) award Plaintiff-Petitioner compensatory damages for the losses she suffered as a result of the Defendants’ defamatory statements, including, but not limited economic losses, injury to reputation, and emotional distress;

(f) entcr judgment directing Defcndant NYU to take all steps necessary to clear Plaintiff- Pctitioncr’s name in Singapore;

(6) award Plaintiff-Petitioner punitive damages;

(11) award Plaintiff-Petitioner pre-judgment intercst on the amounts owed;

(i) enter an order and judgment, pursuant to C.P.L.R. Article 78, that NYU violated its

42


.s;nntractual~~bligatians to_Plaintiff-Petitl~~pursMant to the its Faculty Handb*mk, its Arts Professor Policy Document, and its Guidelines for Arts Professors Appointments, Renewals, Promotions by dismissing Plaintiff-Petitioner for allcged violations of NYU’s Policy and Code of Ethical Conduct without following thc General Disciplinary Regulations Applicable to Both Tenured and Non-Tenured Faculty Members;

(j) issue a writ of mandamus, pursuant to C.P.L.K. Article 78, ordering NYU to vacate Plaintiff-Petitioner’s June 22,201 2 termination; to expunge any and all records reflecting that iinlawful decision; to refrain from representing that Dr. Shirazi was discharged for unprofessional conduct; to reinstate Dr. Shirazi to her former position as an Associate Arts Professor; to issue a letter to Dr. Shirazi acknowledging her right to continued appointment as an Arts Professor through August 3 1,20 16 and her right to be considered thereafter for successive appointments i n accordance with then-applicable NYU policies and procedures; to promptly consider Dr. Shirazi’s request for promotion in accordance with applicable policies and procedures; to provide her with the full protections of its disciplinary policies and proccdures; and to award her incidental damages, including but not limited to wages and other lost benefits; and

(k) award Plaintiff-Petitioner such additional relief as the Court may deem just and proper, including attorneys’ fees and the costs and disbursements of th is proceeding.

JLJRY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiff-Petitioner hereby demands ajury trial of those claims for which ajury trial is permitted pursuant

to C.P.L.R. @4102 and 7804(h). This matter is entitled to a special trial preference.

Dated: New York, New York September 25,2012

43

BRILL & MEJSEL Altorneys fmr Plaintg- Pet itioner

Rosalind S. Fink 845 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022 (212) 753-5599


STATE OF NEW YORK 1 ) ss.

COUNTY OF NEW YORK )

PARI SARA SHTRAZI, being duly sworn, dcposes and says:

I m the Plaintiff-Petitioner in the above-entitled action. 1 have read the foregoing Verified

Petition and Corrrplaint and know the contents thereof; the same is true to m y knowledge, except as to the

matters stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters 1 believe them to be true.

Sworn to before me this 25th day of September, 2012
