By TESA CULLI

tesa.culli@register-news.com

INA — Salah Shakir, the Rend Lake College vice president of information technology has filed a federal lawsuit against the college and three members of the college board alleging racial, national origin and religious discrimination.

The lawsuit is the result of an investigation by the college in August 2007, after the board received an anonymous letter alleging Shakir had participated in unethical behavior and criticized him for practicing his religion and speaking in Arabic.

Shakir filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Dec. 18, 2007, and filed a second charge with EEOC on July 7, 2008. The U.S. Department of Justice issued a notice of right to sue to Shakir on Aug. 27, according to information in the lawsuit.

The college and specific members of the board — Bill Simpson, Randall Crocker and Brian Drew are named as individual defendants in the lawsuit, which alleges each of the three board members “personally participated in several of the discriminatory and tortious decisions and actions alleged in this complaint.”

Shakir, a native of Iraq and a Muslim, has 17 years of experience in college-level administration and teaching and 25 years in information technology field experience. He is expected to receive a doctorate in business administration in May.

According to the lawsuit, in response to the letter, an investigation was launched, led by private attorney John Huffman and Brian Drew, and authorized by Simpson and Crocker “unilaterally in violation of the requirements of the Board Policy and Procedures Manual.”

Further, the lawsuit alleges no one told Shakir of the purpose, scope or findings of the investigation.

“The college refrained from repudiating the allegations and bigoted statements in the letter. On Oct. 3, 2007, Dr. Drew and Mr. Huffman interrogated (Shakir) for about two hours. Many of the questions were outside the scope of the allegations in the letter,” the lawsuit states. “On information and belief, near the end of the investigation, the vice president of finance and administration and the vice president of instruction sent letters to Mr. Huffman about (Shakir). The board never informed (him) of the contents of the letters and was never given a chance to respond to them.”

Further, Huffman allegedly told the college president that more than 22 female employees of the college were afraid of Shakir, according to the lawsuit.

“That allegation is not true, except to the extent that perhaps all employees are susceptible to being somewhat intimidated by their bosses,” the lawsuit states. “To the contrary, some female employees reported to (Shakir) that they felt intimidated by the investigation itself. Three female employees approached the plaintiff after they had been interviewed and told him that they were not afraid of him and enjoyed working with him.”

Allegedly, Simpson, Crocker and Drew tried to convince Mark Kern, who served as president on Oct. 16, 2007, to terminate Shakir’s employment.

“Mr. Kern, as a compromise, convinced the board members to take lesser punitive action,” the lawsuit alleges. “On or about Oct. 19, 2007, the college approved the decision to remove (Shakir) from the position of vice president of student services. It also voted to freeze (Shakir’s) salary. Similarly situated employees of the college were not subjected to similar penalties.”

In addition, the college didn’t inform Shakir of the reasons for removing him from the position or the outcome of its investigation, according to the lawsuit.

After the decision to remove Shakir from his previous position and freeze his salary, someone from the college, “contacted the Department of Homeland Security and made completely unsubstantiated and unjustified allegations against the plaintiff with the Department of Homeland Security, but an FBI official told (Shakir) it had declined to investigate the allegations because it deemed them to be completely without merit or substance.”

The lawsuit further alleges Crocker knows who the employee was that contacted the federal authorities with the false accusations.

Further, the lawsuit alleges that the college board “encouraged a hostile and discriminatory atmosphere at the college.

“For example, upon learning that Mr. Salah facilitated the admission of Saudi Arabian students at the college, administrator Lindsey Darnell called Mr. Bob Carlock and Mr. Huffman and stated that she was afraid for her safety, then locked herself in her office,” the lawsuit states. “She also stated that because of the mere presence of Saudi Arabian students she was afraid for the safety of her children and in May 2008 requested, and was granted, extra security at the college daycare facility.”

In December 2007, Simpson told the board of the complaint Shakir filed with the EEOC.

“On or about Jan. 15, 2008, Mr. Crocker told Mr. Mark Kern, the president of the college, that if (Shakir) could ‘back off his lawsuit he could stay as long as he wants,’” the lawsuit states. “On or about Feb. 12, 2008, another board member told President Mark Kern that it would be better for [Shakir] to leave the college.”

When another anonymous letter was received by the college — this time criticizing then vice president of instruction Jim Hull, the college, “did not investigate Mr. Hull, nor did it vote to freeze his salary or take away some of his responsibilities, despite the fact that they were aware of the contents of the letter.”

In March, Shakir wrote a letter to the college complaining of discrimination and asking for redress, the lawsuit states.

“In response, Mr. Huffman met with Mr. Kern and stated that Mr. Simpson was extremely angry and that the board might retaliate against Salah by ‘going after him,’” the lawsuit alleges. “When Mr. Kern asked who decided that the purpose of the investigation was, in part, to investigate (Shakir), Mr. Huffman replied that Mr. Simpson made the decision.”

The lawsuit alleges that on April 16, board member David Edmison told Kern that Shakir, “gets along better with men than with women,” which the lawsuit contends is a stereotype of Middle Eastern men and does not represent Shakir’s attitude or behavior toward men and women.

Shakir further contends, through the lawsuit, that although he was the best candidate for the position of college president, he was passed over. Shakir submitted an application for the position in April 2008, when the president search to replace Kern began. Shakir interviewed for the position with the board, the President’s Cabinet, the President’s Council, the Academic Council and an open session of the college.

“The college offered the president position to an outside candidate, a Caucasian male who is acquainted with Mr. Simpson, Mr. Drew and Mr. Crocker, who declined the offer,” the lawsuit states. “The defendant then closed the position despite the fact the plaintiff is eminently qualified and willing to fill it.”

When the board opted for a second round of applications for the president search, Charley Holstein was appointed s interim president.

“(Shakir) is the most senior vice president at the college and is more qualified to serve as interim president than Mr. Holstein, who has less than a year of college-level administrative experience,” the lawsuit alleges. “Mr. Holstein himself interviewed (Shakir) at a President’s Cabinet session for the position and told (Shakir) at the time that (Shakir) was the most qualified candidate for both the interim and permanent position.”

When the board decided not to consider any of the internal applicants for the president’s position in July, the lawsuit contends, “the purpose of this decision was to exclude plaintiff from consideration.”

The lawsuit contends that due to publicity surrounding the anonymous letters, the investigation and the failure to promote and the disciplinary actions the college took against Shakir have “had an adverse impact on his reputation, conditions of his employment and his career. Plaintiff and his family have also experienced serious emotional distress as a result.”

Shakir allegedly experienced emotional distress, irreparable damage to his career, inconvenience, lost wages and benefits, and is requesting the court to find in his favor and grant all wages and benefits he would have received, emotional distress damages, compensatory damages, attorney’s fees and costs and any other relief the law and justice allow.