Krug v. Bloomsburg University, 4:18-cv-01669

Background

Dr. Jeffrey Krug, former Dean of Business at Bloomsburg University, claimed he was fired in retaliation for assisting with allegations of sexual harassment and financial misconduct against the university's president, Dr. Hanna.
The case was tried before a jury, which found for Dr. Krug on all claims, awarding substantial back pay, front pay, compensatory, and punitive damages.
Defendants (Bloomsburg University, PASSHE, Dr. Hanna, Dr. Krause) moved for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial, citing lack of evidence, improper admission of evidence, qualified immunity, and error in evidentiary rulings.
Key evidence included testimony about reporting and investigation of harassment allegations, procedural irregularities in Dr. Krug's termination, and the involvement of PASSHE and outside counsel.
Procedurally, Dr. Krug advanced claims under § 1983, Title VII, Title IX, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA), and the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law.
The court denied the defense motions, affirming the jury's verdict and the admissibility/rulings on contested evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Dr. Hanna’s personal involvement in retaliation (§ 1983)	Hanna personally involved, evidence supports inference of retaliation	No direct involvement; merely coincidental timing	Sufficient evidence; motion denied
Proper reporting under PA Whistleblower Law	Reported to employer’s Title IX office, which is appropriate authority	Reporting to public or coworkers invalidates claim	Reporting to Title IX office suffices
Qualified immunity for Dr. Krause (§ 1983 claims)	Rights were clearly established, reliance on report unreasonable	Relying on outside law firm reasonable, law not clearly established	Not entitled to qualified immunity
PASSHE’s involvement in alleged retaliation	Ample evidence of direct and indirect participation	Only provided advice, not involved in retaliation	Sufficient evidence; motion denied
Admission of prior allegations (404(b) evidence)	Evidence goes to knowledge/motivation, not improper propensity	Highly prejudicial; irrelevant to central claims	Properly admitted for limited purpose
Authentication of anonymous email	Authenticated as received by PASSHE/Bloomsburg, not author’s intent	Can’t authenticate without identifying sender	Properly authenticated as received
Admissibility of Ballard Spahr report as business record	Lacked business record foundation, prepared for litigation	Investigation report is routine business record	Not a business record; exclusion proper
Allowing jury to hear general nature of harassment allegations	Necessary for prima facie case, ruling balanced and fair	Prejudicial, unnecessary since protected activity conceded	Allowing general mention was appropriate

Key Cases Cited

Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (qualified immunity shields officials only where rights are not clearly established)
Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195 (personal involvement required under §1983)
Allied Chemical Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33 (standard for granting a new trial)
Goodman v. Pa. Turnpike Comm'n, 293 F.3d 655 (definition and limits of unfair prejudice under FRE 403)
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (the contours of clearly established rights for qualified immunity)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (two-step qualified immunity analysis)
Azzaro v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 110 F.3d 968 (speech related to matters of public concern)
Fleck v. KDI Sylvan Pools, Inc., 981 F.2d 107 (failure to object at trial can be waiver of argument)
United States v. Pelullo, 964 F.2d 193 (requirements for business record exception)