University employee says lawsuit is part of harassment campaign
BY DANIEL SCHMIDT
THE OBSERVER
AUBURN — Two former Auburn University graduate students and three university employees have filed a federal lawsuit accusing a wildlife-research project leader of fostering a hostile, oversexualized “frat house” environment and accusing the university of retaliating against those who complained.
But another university employee is disputing the core allegations, casting the lawsuit as the culmination of a nearly two-year-long process against the project’s lead principal investigator, assistant professor Jonathon Valente.
The suit was filed by former doctoral students Kaitlin Connelly and Marlene “Mars” Walters, faculty members Robert Gitzen and Christopher Lepczyk and research associate Jean Fantle-Lepczyk, Lepczyk’s wife and Connelly’s advisor.
It raises retaliation claims under Title IX and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and names Valente individually, alleging he violated the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.
The dispute centers on the federally funded Inventory Conservation Project, known as ICP2, which was designed to study the effects of habitat management on state-owned land affected Alabama wildlife from 2024 through 2028.
Connelly and Walters worked on the project as graduate research assistants in the university’s College of Forestry, Wildlife and Environment (CFWE).
Background information
According to the complaint, Connelly and Walters found what they perceived to be a predominantly male research team hostile and discriminatory, describing a “frat house” atmosphere in which male participants traded sexual banter about women they knew or were dating.
The lawsuit alleges Valente sometimes joined in, making jokes about sexual activity and male genitalia, and that he allowed the environment to persist, favored male colleagues and diminished the two students’ work.
Connelly, who identifies as lesbian, and Walters, who identifies as a nonbinary transgender person, say they were treated differently than their male colleagues.
That included, they alleged, being cut off mid-sentence during group discussions and ridiculed for ideas that drew a friendlier response from Valente when raised by men.
Walters also alleged Valente showed little interest in the mentorship expected of a faculty advisor, instead treating their relationship as one between an employer and employee.
The lawsuit says after Walters asked to pursue academic work outside ICP2, Valente told them their participation had been a “waste of time.”
Walters, whom the suit says developed depression and anxiety requiring counseling and psychiatric treatment, then left Auburn sometime during May 2024 before finishing their PhD program.
The lawsuit further alleges Valente ignored a prohibited romantic relationship between Justin Hall, a research associate and project manager, and a graduate student.
The suit says Valente was aware of the relationship and allowed the two to share hotel rooms apart from the rest of the team at times, and that the graduate student allegedly walked around nude during several overnight trips.
The allegations
According to the lawsuit, Connelly remained at Auburn and filed a series of complaints through the university’s Equal Opportunity Compliance Office (EOCO) and Title IX office.
In fall 2024, Gitzen, Lepczyk and Fantle-Lepczyk also submitted their own complaints about the treatment Connelly and Walters received.
Then in early September 2024, Gitzen reported Hall’s alleged relationship with the other graduate student to the Title IX office, and he and Lepczyk also alerted the college’s human resources office. The plaintiffs say the university then punished those who spoke out.
Gitzen and Lepczyk were removed from leadership roles on ICP2, and Connelly was directed to leave the project in late 2024 in a decision the lawsuit says forced her to abandon her goal of pursuing a doctorate later on.
The suit also claims the retaliation extended beyond ICP2.
Gitzen was removed in early May 2025 from his role as principal co-investigator on a different collaboration with the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR) — for reasons the complaint says were tied explicitly to his ICP2 complaints — and learned days before filing that the university would proceed without him on a separate ADCNR project built on an idea he had developed.
Lepczyk, who had recently finished a term as dean of the university’s Honors College in summer 2024, said he was passed over for promotions and was warned by senior officials that his complaints were jeopardizing his professional standing.
On May 29, 2025, then-associate dean Todd Steury and senior academics Mark Smith and Steven Ditchkoff allegedly told Lepczyk his ICP2 role risked “injuring his professional stature.”
When he applied to be associate dean of research in December 2025, a search committee questioned his effectiveness “in light of the controversies over ICP2,” the suit says.
The lawsuit alleges Fantle-Lepczyk then lost research opportunities and was passed over in fall 2025 for a tenure-track appointment given to a less-qualified candidate.
In announcing the filing, HKM Employment Attorneys lawyer Artur Davis, who is representing the plaintiffs along with co-counsel Jerilyn Gardner, said Gitzen and Lepczyk should never have been removed.
“A prestigious research project is not a dive bar, and it shouldn’t involve misogynist hazing,” Davis said. “No professor ought to make themselves a target for standing up for vulnerable students.”
A competing account
A university employee who requested anonymity due to fear of retaliation disputed the lawsuit’s account and said Valente had been unfairly targeted during the dispute.
The employee claimed Gitzen and Lepczyk were removed from the ICP2 project not in retaliation, but because they failed to meet deadlines and other deliverables.
The employee alleged this was primarily due to Gitzen’s and Lepczyk’s failures to properly communicate with Valente, inappropriate communications with associated students and other actions that resulted in project delays.
The employee said ADCNR officials approached the university in November 2024 to express a lack of confidence in Lepczyk and Gitzen and asked that both be removed. The employee said that after roughly six weeks of conflict over the project’s direction, ADCNR officials then asked Valente to decide how the work would proceed.
Gitzen and Lepczyk responded by filing ethics complaints the employee characterized as being “unfounded”, though The Observer was unable to obtain copies of those ethics complaints or determine how the university resolved them.
Internal university emails show that roughly two and a half weeks after Gitzen and Lepczyk were dismissed from the project, the university instituted a plan intended to ease tensions and comply with the ADCNR’s earlier requests.
In an email sent on Nov. 21, 2024, that included multiple ADCNR officials as recipients, Steven Taylor, the university’s senior vice president for research and economic development, mentioned “finding a workable path forward to complete this project” and working “to develop an optimal solution to meet the deliverables for this project.”
As part of that plan, Gitzen, Lepczyk and Connelly were to use data from Inventory Control Project 1, known as ICP1, a similar project that ran from 2008 to 2011, and ICP2 data collected up until November 2024.
That plan also included that all ICP2 data involving bats be turned over to the ADCNR along with a detailed explanation of how the data was collected; that Gitzen, Lepczyk and Connelly complete data processing of ICP1 data by May 2025; and that all ICP1 and ICP2 data be made available to the ADCNR every quarter along with progress reports.
That plan also gave Gitzen, Lepczyk and Connelly one year to publish on the data before other people could begin using it in their own publications.
Financially, that plan also allowed Connelly to receive support through an ICP assistantship and receive funding from the CFWE from June until December in 2025, and Lepczyk was offered three months of transitional funding for his summer salary during 2025.
In an internal report commissioned by the EOCO investigating Connelly’s claims that The Observer reviewed, multiple witnesses who were interviewed by university investigators described those requests and parameters as being fair.
However, the report investigating Connelly’s claims also acknowledged that the plan was not fully explained to Connelly, Gitzen and Lepczyk until March 2025.
When approached for comment about the agency’s perspective on the disputed claims, Charlanna Skaggs, the ADCNR’s deputy commissioner and general counsel, said the agency would not comment on the case.
That report investigating Connelly’s claims described an “unreconcilable breakdown in the working relationship” due to hostile emails that Connelly and Gitzen had sent to Valente.
In June 2025, the state agency revoked permission for Gitzen, Lepczyk and Connelly to use the ICP1 and ICP2 project data, citing repeated failures to turn over requested data, equipment and quarterly reports.
The employee also denied accusations that there was a relationship between Hall and the unnamed graduate student, describing them as friends.
The employee claimed that while Hall and the graduate student were reminded that perceptions were important, neither engaged in inappropriate behavior nor did anything Valente could police within his capacity as the project’s principal investigator.
The November 2024 action plan mentioned that the graduate student who was alleged to have had the romantic relationship with Hall chose Valente to be their advisor instead of Gitzen and Lepczyk, who the graduate student had previously worked with.
The employee said that they believed the inclusion of this alleged relationship was unrelated to the broader lawsuit.
When approached for comment about the situation, Valente said his legal counsel had advised him not to comment on ongoing litigation.
Internal investigations
The report commissioned by the EOCO to investigate Connelly’s claims and a separate report to investigate Walters’ claims reached conclusions that differ from the allegations in the federal complaint.
The one investigating Connelly’s 14 allegations — among them that she was stripped of funding and supplies, held to impossible deadlines, threatened over physical job requirements and targeted with false rumors — found that Valente did not retaliate against her.
According to that report, university investigators found that while Connelly’s account was consistent across her interactions with them, her knowledge of certain meetings and prior corrective actions exceeded that of other witnesses, leading the university investigators to conclude that her advisors, Gitzen and Lepczyk, had “likely influenced her perceptions.”
The report investigating Connelly’s claims also said university investigators found no evidence of a harassment campaign and described Valente’s communications with Connelly as appropriate and professional.
The second report investigated Walters’ claims, including claims of a “white, male lab culture” and that Valente used a “paternalistic” and “emotionally manipulative” communication style.
Particularly, Walters’ complaint hinged on a conversation they had with Valente in a hallway outside of a classroom, with Walters claiming that Valente told them their participation was a “waste of time.”
Walters also accused Valente of making vulgar comments about male genitalia and other inappropriate remarks.
According to the report investigating Walters’ claims, university investigators found no witnesses who could corroborate Walters’ account and that statements made during the university’s investigation suggested Walters “may have entered the lab environment with preexisting concerns about gender dynamics.”
That same report Valente provided evidence and corroborating witnesses, including on those disputed remarks about male genitalia, and numerous female colleagues and students said they never saw him treat students differently based on gender.
As a result, university investigators concluded Valente violated no policies in either case according to both reports.
When asked about the situation, the university’s Office of the General Counsel said it would not comment on ongoing litigation.
According to PaceMonitor, a website that tracks federal district and bankruptcy court cases, Valente and the university were served with summonses on July 26 and July 28, respectively, requiring them to respond to the lawsuit.
Valente and the university must do so by Aug. 17 and 18, respectively. The case is currently set to be overseen by Judge Chad Bryan in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.
