From: J <[email protected]> To: Lawrence Krauss Subject: Re: a possible consult with Ms. Martin Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 00:42:51 +0000 You are on very weak ground . With this part . Very On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 7:32 PM Lawrence Krauss < Dear Ms. Martin: I left a brief phone message, but this will flesh this out. > wrote: I am a professor at ASU, and recently completed an employment review process responding to various allegations of conduct that ended in a conciliation process. I will retire from the University on approximately my 65th birthday this coming may, and am on leave with pay until then, with no acknowledgment of guilt by either party. Following the signing of the agreement the University has retroactively interpreted the leave with pay to be governed by ABOR 6-201 J (3). However, this process ends when the ABOR investigation and resolution process is completed, as it now is. Nowhere in the settlement agreement (attached) does it mention restrictions on my being on campus, meeting with colleagues etc. Last week, when I visited my office to go over materials in preparation for packing and moving in May, and to meet a colleague from Boston University who was giving a colloquium that day and had asked me if he could meet as we are working on a long term project together. At midday a representative from the Dean's office came to my office to let me know I could not attend the public colloquium. I have had correspondence with the Dean about this, and see no provision for keeping me from campus or my office. In fact I have filed an internal grievance complaint regarding this. The attorney who represented ASU during the conciliation process contacted the lawyer who represented me during that process (from a Washington Law Firm specializing in Title IX and free speech issues) about this issue, but he no longer represents me. I was wondering if I could have a consult with you about whether it would make sense to retain your firm with regar