Lawsuit
Says Caltech Provost And Others Ignored
Israeli Spying
How U.S. taxpayer funded scientific
technology is stolen by Israel.
By Alison Weir
January 16, 2015 "ICH"
- "If
Americans Knew"
- Following is a deeply disturbing
excerpt from a civil
lawsuit filed by a Caltech professor
against Caltech, often named the
world’s top research university.
Caltech’s official name is the California
Institute of Technology.
According to the lawsuit,
a small coterie of Caltech professors and
administrators ignored Israeli spying and
theft of taxpayer-funded U.S. technology and
then retaliated against the professor for
reporting it.
Caltech Provost Edward
Stolper, who has ties to Israel and received
an
honorary degree from one of its
universities, seems to have been one of
those leading the charge.
The lawsuit is by a
distinguished physicist named
Dr.
Sandra Troian, who was recruited from
Princeton, has won numerous scientific
awards, and serves on national and
international scientific boards.
In her suit Dr. Troian says that an Israeli
postdoctoral student blatantly violated US
laws and transmitted information on
potential space technology to Israel.
According to Troian, when
she reported these violations, some Caltech
administrators and professors ignored the
Israeli’s extensive violations, and then,
enabled by diverse cronies and subordinates,
launched an escalating retaliatory campaign
against her for trying to stop the Israeli’s
illegal activities. Some of the actions
described below were remarkably petty,
others of considerable significance.
The complaint, filed
November 13th, 2014, describes the course of
events in illuminating and excruciating
detail. The statement also says that Stolper
and others worked to impede information from
reaching the FBI, which was investigating
possible Israeli spying and infiltration at
Caltech.
The alleged espionage and
theft largely took place at Caltech’s
Jet
Propulsion Laboratory, a top NASA
research and development center.
According to Troian’s
statement, Stolper repeatedly attempted to
intimidate Troian, saying that people at
Caltech “feared” him and that she would be
“miserable” if she did not cooperate with
him. Stolper also seems to have used his
power to deny Troian more than a million
dollars worth of grant funds, threatened to
cut off her access to post-doctoral
researchers, and attempted to tar her with
(unfounded) accusations of scientific
misconduct.
If Troian’s statements
below are accurate, they reveal significant
subversion of one of America’s most
important scientific institutions. They also
provide a case study of how U.S. taxpayer
funded scientific technology is stolen by
Israel. U.S. agencies periodically name
Israel as a
top espionage threat against the United
States.
In a
statement announcing the lawsuit, Troian
said: “I have committed my heart and soul to
Caltech. But I will not violate the law.
And, I will not allow Caltech to ruin my
career for alerting them to violations of
laws intended to protect our greater
society.”
The Pasadena Star-News
reports that a Troian attorney, Dan
Stormer, “said national security concerns
are at stake.” The newspaper reports that
Stormer seeks punitive damages because
Caltech should “be held publicly accountable
for their conduct.” Stormer said,
“Plaintiffs in similar cases have been
awarded multibillion-dollar verdicts.” The
Caltech administration has
denied culpability.
Two hearings are
currently
scheduled in Los Angeles Superior Court:
A trial setting conference
will be held is on February 24, 2015 at 9:30
am in department 82 at 111 North Hill
Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012.
A hearing to consider a
motion by Caltech for bifurcation is
scheduled for the same location on May 14,
2015. Caltech claims that some of Troian’s
claims are not appropriate for legal action
because she has not yet exhausted internal
remedies.
Below is an
excerpt from
Troian’s legal complaint, with photos
added of the cast of characters. Troian is
demanding a jury trial.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Dr. Troian is a Prominent
Physicist and Academic at Caltech.
Dr.
Sandra Troian, professor who filed lawsuit.
11.
Dr. Troian has been a physicist and
accomplished academic scholar for over
twenty-five years.
12.
Dr. Troian holds a B.A. in Physics from
Harvard University and a M.S. and Ph.D. in
Physics from Cornell University. Prior to
joining Caltech, she was a faculty member at
Princeton University, where she was promoted
to tenured Associate Professor in 1999 and
Full Professor in 2002.
13.
Caltech recruited Dr. Troian to join its
faculty as a Professor of Applied Physics,
of Aeronautics, and of Mechanical
Engineering in the Division of Engineering
and Applied Science (“EAS”).
14.
Dr. Troian began her employment at Caltech
in September 2006. Her employment is
governed by a contract between her and
Caltech, executed on May 3, 2006, and by
Caltech’s Faculty Handbook.
15.
Dr. Troian is the only female faculty member
in Applied Physics at Caltech, and one of
only four female physicist faculty members
on campus.
16.
Dr. Troian has earned numerous awards for
her research and teaching from the National
Science Foundation, the American Physical
Society, the Caltech Moore Distinguished
Scholar program, and Princeton and Caltech.
She has served on numerous editorial,
executive, and advisory boards including the
Defense Sciences Research Council, the
Annual Reviews of Fluid Mechanics, the
Physics of Fluids, the Kavli Institute for
Theoretical Physics, the Microdevices
Laboratory of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
the Max-Planck-Institut für Dynamik und
Selbstorganisation, the Society of
Engineering Science, Inc., and the Institute
for Defense Analysis. She has also worked in
industry, and consults for government and
private sector organizations.
17.
Dr. Troian is also a contractor and holds
research privileges at the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory (“JPL”), which is a
federally-funded research and development
facility managed by Caltech on behalf of the
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (“NASA”).
18.
Federal export control laws govern the
conditions under which certain information,
technologies, and commodities at JPL can be
transmitted to other countries, or to
unauthorized persons in the U.S. Several
federal agencies, including the U.S.
Department of State through its
International Traffic in Arms Regulations
(“ITAR”), administer federal export control
laws.
Dr. Troian Reported Apparent
Illegal Activity by Her Postdoctoral
Scholar, Dr. Amir Gat, to Caltech, but
Caltech Refused to Take Action.
Amir
Gat, postdoctoral researcher who allegedly
illegally transmitted information to Israel.
He now works at Technion - Israel Institute
of Technology.
19.
In March 2010, Dr. Troian became Principal
Investigator (“PI”) on an export controlled
project at JPL known as the Electrospray
Thruster Array Technology Feasibility Study
Project (“Electrospray Project”). The goal
of the Electrospray Project was to design a
new type of space micropropulsion system.
20.
The Electrospray Project was
ITAR-restricted, which meant that Dr. Troian
and all other project researchers could not
divulge or export any project-related
technical data to foreign end users or
foreign destinations without U.S. government
authorization.
21.
The Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (“DARPA”) funded the Electrospray
Project.
22.
Dr. Troian hired Dr. Amir Gat to work with
her on the Electrospray Project as a
postdoctoral research scholar in March of
2010.
23.
Dr. Gat is an Israeli foreign national, who,
at the time, had recently earned his Ph.D.
in Aerospace Engineering from the Technion –
Israel Institute of Technology (“ITT”).
24.
Caltech approved Dr. Gat’s hiring as a
Caltech employee.
25.
As Dr. Gat’s research supervisor, Dr. Troian
had a duty to ensure Dr. Gat’s compliance
with ITAR.
26.
Both Dr. Troian and Dr. Gat signed a
Technology Control Plan (“TCP”) and addendum
governing the Electrospray Project. In so
doing, they certified their understanding of
their obligations not to disclose
ITAR-restricted technical data to foreign
persons or foreign countries without prior
approval from the U.S. Department of State
and that failure to comply with this
obligation could subject them to criminal
fines and penalties.
27.
A violation of the TCP constitutes a
violation of ITAR.
28.
Soon after Dr. Gat began working for Dr.
Troian on the Electrospray Project, Dr.
Troian began to suspect him of violating the
TCP and ITAR provisions.
29.
Dr. Gat refused to properly record and
safeguard his calculations, numerical
simulations, and technical details of the
JPL device, as required by DARPA, the TCP,
and ITAR.
30.
Dr. Gat also stored project-related files
and technical information on his personal
laptop, rather than on his safeguarded
office computer, in violation of the TCP and
ITAR.
31.
Dr. Gat also repeatedly entered erroneous
numbers into the design software code when
running project simulations, despite clear
instructions from Dr. Troian and JPL
researchers on which numbers to use.
32.
On May 25, 2010, a virus attacked Dr.
Troian’s computer network at Caltech,
causing hundreds of project files to be
uploaded in rapid succession to an unknown
IP address outside of Caltech and causing
Caltech to disable Dr. Troian’s network for
several days.
33.
Dr. Troian traced the virus that caused the
network problems to Dr. Gat’s computer, and
notified Caltech officials of this fact.
Daniel
Weihs, professor at Israel's Technion and a
member of Israel’s National Steering
Committee for Space Infrastructure of the
Ministry of Science, Chair of Israel’s
National Committee for Space
Research, and Chief
Scientist at the Ministry of Science and
Technology.
34.
When Dr. Troian questioned Dr. Gat about the
virus attack, he refused to disclose the
websites he had visited prior to the attack
on the network.
35.
On May 28, 2010, Dr. Gat admitted to Dr.
Troian that he had been sharing details of
the Electrospray Project with Dr. Daniel
Weihs, his Ph.D. advisor at ITT in Israel,
without proper U.S. government approval. Dr.
Gat refused to disclose to Dr. Troian the
substance or extent of his transfer of
information.
36.
Dr. Weihs was a member of Israel’s National
Steering Committee for Space Infrastructure
of the Ministry of Science, Chair of
Israel’s National Committee for Space
Research, and Chief Scientist at the
Ministry of Science and Technology.
37.
On June 3, 2010, Dr. Troian found Dr. Gat
wandering alone, unauthorized, in one of her
access-restricted experimental laboratories.
Dr. Gat explained that Dr. Weihs had
recommended that he “look around” to see
what other aerospace projects were ongoing
at Caltech in collaboration with JPL. Dr.
Gat said that he was hoping that the Israel
Institute of Technology would hire him in
the future, after he left the United States
and returned to Israel.
Marionne
Epallé, Caltech administrator who removed
Gat's papers after Troian reported him,
despite the fact that this allegedly
violated ITAR regulations. Epallé said she
had been ordered her to do so.
38.
Throughout the summer of 2010, Dr. Troian
reported to Caltech, her growing concerns
that Dr. Gat was transferring export
controlled information without proper U.S.
government approval to various Caltech and
JPL officials.
39.
On June 4, 2010, Dr. Troian met with EAS
Division Administrator Marionne Epallé and
specifically requested that Ms. Epallé
document Dr. Gat’s apparent TCP and ITAR
violations. On June 14, 2010, Dr. Troian
contacted Ms. Epallé and Dr. Rosakis again
reiterating her concerns about Dr. Gat and
requesting that they be documented for the
record.
40.
At least two JPL supervisors also reported
Dr. Gat’s apparent illegal activity to the
JPL Special Programs Security Manager, who
handles espionage concerns.
41.
To Dr. Troian’s knowledge, Caltech did not
investigate Dr. Gat or otherwise take action
in response to Dr. Troian’s or other JPL
supervisors’ complaints of Dr. Gat’s TCP and
ITAR violations.
42.
Upon information and belief, during this
period in 2010, Caltech was seeking to renew
its contract with NASA to manage JPL, and,
as part of the reapplication process, needed
to certify that its employees and
contractors were not violating U.S.
government security regulations, including
ITAR.
Ares
Rosakis, division chair, was one of the
first people informed
about Gat’s behavior. Troian says that after
the FBI questioned her about the situation,
Rosakis warned Troian that her behavior was
becoming “dangerous” for the Division and
for Caltech.
43.
On August 3, 2010, Dr. Troian dismissed Dr.
Gat from the Electrospray Project because of
her security concerns about him. She
instructed Dr. Gat to return all material
belonging to the Project, but he refused to
do so and threatened to continue working on
the project.
44.
Dr. Troian did not have the power to
terminate Dr. Gat’s employment with Caltech
entirely, only to dismiss him from her own
research group.
45.
On August 4, 2010, Dr. Gat emailed a JPL
supervisor and asked for permission to
continue working on Dr. Troian’s project or
other aerospace projects at JPL. The
supervisor denied Dr. Gat’s request and
instructed Dr. Troian to secure all material
in his possession.
46.
On August 8, 2010, a week after Dr. Troian
terminated Dr. Gat from the Electrospray
Project, she discovered that he had been
posting literature pertaining to the Project
on a public web site since March 22, 2010,
and that users worldwide were linking to the
site. Dr. Gat’s more than 65 online postings
were unauthorized and revealed the key
operating principle of the JPL
micropropulsion device, which violated ITAR
and the TCP.
Troian
says she informed April White Castaneda,
Caltech’s Executive Director of Human
Resources, that Gat had posted information
to a public site that revealed the key
operating principle of the JPL
micropropulsion
device. This violated federal regulations.
47.
Dr. Troian immediately reported Dr. Gat’s
unauthorized online postings to Ms. Epallé,
to a JPL supervisor, to April White,
Caltech’s Executive Director of Human
Resources, and to Adam Cochran, Caltech’s
Associate General Counsel.
48.
Throughout August and September 2010, Dr.
Troian submitted a series of requests to
Caltech to secure and lock down Dr. Gat’s
work-related materials and electronic files,
and to confiscate his office and building
keys and campus ID. Dr. Troian contacted Dr.
Ares Rosakis, Caltech’s EAS Division Chair;
Susan Connor, a Caltech Senior Human
Resources (“HR”) Consultant; Julia McCallin,
Caltech’s Associate Vice President of HR;
and Dr. Morteza Gharib, Caltech’s Vice
Provost of Research, among others.
49.
On August 16, 2010, Dr. Troian met with Dr.
Gharib. As Caltech’s Vice Provost of
Research, Dr. Gharib was responsible for
investigating Dr. Gat’s possible ITAR
violations and for securing his work-related
materials.
Troian
says she informed Adam Cochran, Caltech’s
Associate General Counsel, that Gat had
posted information to a public site that
revealed the key operating principle of the
JPL micropropulsion device. This violated
federal regulations.
50.
During the meeting, Dr. Troian explained Dr.
Gat’s erratic behavior and his admission
that he had improperly transferred ITAR-controlled
technical data to Dr. Weihs. She explained
that she did not know the full extent of the
transfer because Dr. Gat failed to document
it, and refused to give her access to his
laptop on which the project files were
stored. Dr. Troian insisted that Caltech
immediately terminate Dr. Gat’s employment
and secure all of his material pertaining to
the Electrospray Project.
51.
Dr. Gharib told Dr. Troian “It’s not my
business.” He further told Dr. Troian that
he (Gharib) was “best friends” with Dr.
Weihs, Dr. Gat’s Ph.D. advisor in Israel
with whom Dr. Gat had admitted sharing ITAR-restricted
information, and that, as a favor to Dr.
Weihs, he (Gharib) had already offered Dr.
Gat a postdoctoral research scholar position
in his own research group since she had
terminated him.
[Editor’s note: Gharib had been made vice
provost in July.]
Dr.
Troian says she submitted a series of
requests to Caltech to secure and lock down
Dr. Gat’s work-related materials and
electronic files. Among those she contacted
was Julia McCallin, Caltech’s
Associate Vice
President of HR.
52.
On August 19, 2010, Ms. Epallé went to Dr.
Gat’s former office and hurriedly put all of
his work materials into a cardboard box. Dr.
Troian tried to stop Ms. Epallé, telling her
that her actions violated ITAR and Caltech
protocol for securing such materials. Ms.
Epallé responded that she was under direct
orders to remove the material and to give it
to Dr. Gat. Dr. Troian tried to physically
stop Ms. Epallé, but she rushed out of the
room with Dr. Gat’s work materials.
53.
No one at Caltech ever made Dr. Gat return
his work files, or ever reviewed his laptop
for ITAR information. It waited several
weeks to request that Dr. Gat return his
office keys, and that he remove the
project-related information that he had
posted online improperly, and likely
illegally, after Dr. Troian terminated him
from the Electrospray Project.
54.
Dr. Gat worked in Dr. Gharib’s research
group at Caltech from August 2010 until July
2012.
55.
Dr. Gat has since returned to Israel, where
he is Assistant Professor of Mechanical
Engineering at ITT, an Israeli government
institution, and he continues to actively
publish with Dr. Gharib.
FBI Agents Approached Dr.
Troian about Dr. Gat, and She Truthfully
Disclosed His Apparent Unlawful Activities.
56.
On June 28, 2012, Kelly M. Sullivan and
David Tsang, FBI agents with the Los Angeles
County Counterintelligence Division,
approached Dr. Troian and told her that
there had been several security breaches at
JPL.
Morteza
Gharib, Caltech vice provost, said he was
“best friends” with Dr. Weihs, the Israeli
with whom restricted information had been
shared.
57.
They told her that Dr. Gat was a focus of a
larger investigation involving ITAR
violations and possibly espionage, and asked
her for information pertaining to his
activities at JPL and Caltech.
58.
Dr. Troian responded to all of the FBI
agents’ questions truthfully. She responded
that she believed Dr. Gat had, in fact,
violated federal export control laws while
at Caltech. The agents asked Dr. Troian if
she had ever reported Dr. Gat and to whom,
and she replied that she had repeatedly
voiced her concerns to Caltech officials,
including Drs. Gharib and Rosakis, and to
JPL supervisors, but Caltech had failed to
investigate Dr. Gat. They asked Dr. Troian
about Dr. Gat’s whereabouts, and she replied
that he was still on campus, because Dr.
Gharib had taken Dr. Gat into his own
research group immediately after she
dismissed Dr. Gat from her own. The agents
asked why Dr. Gharib had hired Dr. Gat, and
she told the agents about Dr. Weihs’s
relationship with Dr. Gharib.
59.
The agents urged Dr. Troian to execute an
affidavit containing this information about
Drs. Gat, Rosakis, and Gharib. Dr. Troian
voiced her fear of retaliation by Caltech if
she were to execute an affidavit, and
declined to do so.
60.
On July 3, 2012, Agent Sullivan returned to
ask Dr. Troian more questions about illegal
activity at Caltech and JPL. Although Dr.
Troian answered Agent Sullivan’s questions,
because of fear of retaliation from Caltech,
she again declined to execute an affidavit.
Caltech Officials Accused Dr.
Troian of Calling the FBI, and Launched a
Campaign of Retaliation and Intimidation
Against Her.
61.
On July 18, 2012, two weeks after Dr.
Troian’s second conversation with the FBI,
Dr. Rosakis, Ms. Epallé, and Dr. Gharib met
with Dr. Troian under the pretext of
discussing matters related to Dr. Troian’s
postdoctoral research scholars.
62.
During the meeting, Drs. Gharib and Rosakis
accused Dr. Troian of calling the FBI to
Caltech and pressured her to divulge the
content of her conversations with the FBI.
Dr. Troian explained that the FBI had
approached her and asked about Dr. Gat. Drs.
Gharib and Rosakis insisted that they knew
that Dr. Troian had called the FBI. They
demanded: “How did they find out? How did
they know? And why him [Dr. Gat]?”
63.
Dr. Troian reiterated that Dr. Gat had
likely violated federal export control laws
and that Caltech should have fired him
immediately, rather than keeping him engaged
for more than two years.
64.
Dr. Gharib admitted that he knew Dr. Gat had
spoken to Dr. Weihs about the Electrospray
Project. He insisted that Dr. Gat had “made
a mistake” in violating any laws. He stated
that he had asked Dr. Gat about the
violations and “he [Dr. Gat] said ‘no’ and
we accepted that.”
65.
In this meeting, Drs. Rosakis and Gharib
also falsely accused Dr. Troian of
mistreating former postdoctoral research
scholars who had worked with her, including
Dr. Gat and Dr. Anoosheh Niavaranikheiri, a
postdoc who worked under Dr. Troian from
June 2011 to June 2012.
66.
Drs. Rosakis and Gharib threatened to bar
Dr. Troian from hiring future postdoctoral
research scholars, which would seriously
impede her ability to perform her research.
67.
This was the first time anyone had accused
Dr. Troian of mistreating postdoctoral
research scholars.
68.
When Dr. Troian pushed Drs. Gharib and
Rosakis to reveal the basis for any
postdoctoral research scholar complaints
against her, they admitted that no formal
complaints existed.
69.
The meeting lasted two hours and ended with
Drs. Gharib and Rosakis warning Dr. Troian
that her behavior was becoming “dangerous”
for the Division and for Caltech.
Edward
M. Stolper, Caltech provost who told Troian
she would be “miserable” if she didn’t
cooperate.
70.
On July 22, 2012, Dr. Troian wrote a letter
to Dr. Stolper, Caltech’s Provost, asking
him to address Drs. Gharib’s and Rosakis’s
harassment and baseless allegations. Drs.
Troian and Stolper met on July 30, 2012. At
the outset of the meeting, Dr. Stolper also
accused Dr. Troian of calling the FBI. He
stated that Ms.Stratman and “many people”
had personally informed him that she had
called the FBI.
71.
At the meeting, Dr. Stolper told Dr. Troian
that Caltech did not like its employees
calling the authorities. He said repeatedly,
“You’re difficult. That’s what you are and
you are going to have to live with that.” He
told Dr. Troian that he was “feared” on
campus.
72.
At the same meeting, Dr. Stolper also
accused Dr. Troian of mistreating her
postdoctoral research scholars. He told Dr.
Troian that Dr. Niavaranikheiri had lodged a
complaint against her and that lawyers were
involved, but he refused to elaborate or to
show Dr. Troian a copy of the supposed
complaint. Before Dr. Troian left his
office, Dr. Stolper again told her
“everybody is afraid of me” and said he
wondered why that was so.
73.
That same day, Drs. Gharib and Rosakis
placed a false disciplinary warning in Dr.
Troian’s personnel file without her
knowledge. The warning stated that three of
her former postdoctoral research scholars —
Drs. Gat, Niavaranikheiri, and Dietzel —
“had serious complaints about working with
[her],” and that they would bar her from
hiring postdoctoral research scholars if one
more complaint were filed.
74.
Caltech has never shown or explained to Dr.
Troian any of these supposed complaints,
despite her repeated requests. In fact, on a
least two occasions, Drs. Gharib and Rosakis
have admitted that no such complaints
existed, and that Dr. Niavaranikheiri had
left Caltech due to personal issues.
75.
Caltech has refused to remove the
disciplinary letter from her file, despite
the fact that it is based on information
that Drs. Gharib and Rosakis have admitted
is false.
Caltech Falsely Accused Dr.
Troian of Research Misconduct.
76.
Dr. Troian has investigated the physics of
temperature discontinuities at gas-solid and
liquid-solid interfaces in nanoscale systems
(“thermal slip”) since 2010, and published a
paper on the topic in February of 2011. She
has been investigating velocity
discontinuities at liquid-solid interfaces
(“velocity slip”), since 1997, and is well
known for a discovery reported in the
journal, Nature, in 1997.
77.
In June 2011, Dr. Troian hired Dr. Anoosheh
Niavaranikheiri as a postdoctoral research
scholar to assist her with computer
simulations on thermal slip. Because Dr.
Niavaranikheiri had no background in thermal
slip, Dr. Troian first tasked her with
reproducing results that had already been
documented in the scientific literature to
prepare and train her to work on novel
problems with Dr. Troian.
78.
Dr. Niavaranikheiri’s simulations produced
erroneous results. Dr. Troian notified Dr.
Niavaranikheiri of this on several
occasions, beginning in November of 2011,
but by May 2012, Dr. Niavaranikheiri had not
been able to reproduce successfully the
results documented in scientific literature.
As a result, Dr. Troian began conducting her
own computer simulations on the project,
using different computing algorithms,
techniques, and hardware than Dr.
Niavaranikheiri.
79.
Dr. Niavaranikheiri abruptly left Caltech in
early June 2012. Dr. Niavaranikheiri never
gave Dr. Troian notice or an explanation for
why she never returned to work, though she
later told Dr. Gharib that she was having
personal problems and did not like the
environment at Caltech. She never progressed
enough in her thermal slip simulations to
work on the novel problems for which Dr.
Troian had hired her.
80.
After Dr. Niavaranikheiri’s sudden
departure, Dr. Troian began to look for a
new assistant on the project.
81.
On August 2 , 2012, while still seeking a
new assistant, Dr. Troian submitted several
online abstracts (approximately 200 words
each) to present at the 2012 American
Physical Society Meeting of the Division of
Fluid Dynamics (“APS DFD”) scheduled for
November 2012.
82.
APS talks are informal ten-minute reports by
members of the scientific community
regarding their current research.
83.
APS abstracts are 200-word summaries that
researchers submit in advance of their
talks. The abstracts are not scientific
publications; rather, they are informal, not
refereed, and they are subject to change at
any time. They are also not required to
correspond to the eventual talk that the
researcher gives at the APS meeting, as
research is often developed between the
submission date and the presentation date.
84.
One of Dr. Troian’s abstracts focused on the
simulations she had been conducting on
thermal slip (“2012 APS abstract”). The
abstract did not include Dr.
Niavaranikheiri’s name, because Dr.
Niavaranikheiri’s results had not
contributed to Dr. Troian’s work on the
topic.
85.
APS abstracts can list multiple authors, and
the APS typically accepts one abstract per
first author. Knowing this, and with hopes
of finding a new assistant before the
conference, Dr. Troian listed herself as
second author on the 2012 APS abstract
because she was first author on another
abstract that year. Dr. Troian used the
placeholder name of M. Pucci for the first
author, which is her cat’s name.
86.
There are many examples in the Physics and
Mathematics literature in which names of
pets or other humorous objects appear as
co-authors on archival, peer reviewed and
highly cited journals. Prof. Andre Greim,
recipient of the 2010 Nobel Prize in
Physics, co-authored a scientific paper in
2001 with his pet hamster, H.A.M.S. ter
Tisha. In 1975, Prof. Jack Hetherington
co-authored a well-cited paper in Physical
Review Letters, a leading physics journal,
with his cat F.D.C. Willard. Prof. Doron
Zeilberger, recipient of the 2004 Euler
Medal in Mathematics, has co-authored over
30 technical papers with Shalosh B. Ekhad,
the name of his computer.
87.
By November 18, 2012, the date of the APS
meeting, Dr. Troian had been unable to find
a new assistant and had finished her
simulations just shy of the meeting. She
informed the APS meeting officials of this
change and delivered the ten-minute talk
herself.
88.
Upon Dr. Troian’s request, APS later deleted
the placeholder name from the online
scientific program.
89.
Dr. Gharib attended Dr. Troian’s
presentation.
90.
Dr. Gat was also at the APS meeting, and
spoke with Dr. Gharib there several times.
91.
On December 14, 2012, Drs. Gharib and
Rosakis summoned Dr. Troian to the EAS
Division Office. Fearing threats and
retaliation similar to what she had
experienced earlier that year, Dr. Troian
requested the presence of a neutral third
party in advance of the meeting, but Drs.
Gharib and Rosakis refused.
92.
At the meeting, Drs. Gharib and Rosakis
claimed that Dr. Niavaranikheiri had filed a
formal complaint against Dr. Troian two
weeks before the 2012 APS meeting alleging
that Dr. Troian failed to list her (Dr.
Niavaranikheiri) as a co-author on the 2012
APS abstract. Drs. Gharib and Rosakis
refused to show the alleged complaint to Dr.
Troian, despite her requests, and offered no
explanation as to why they failed to notify
Dr. Troian of this supposed complaint until
after Dr. Troian had presented her talk.
93.
Drs. Gharib and Rosakis also questioned Dr.
Troian’s use of a placeholder name on the
abstract.
94.
Dr. Troian explained that Dr.
Niavaranikheiri did not contribute to the
2012 APS abstract or to any of the results
Dr. Troian presented at the meeting, and
that Dr. Niavaranikheiri’s results in fact
contradicted those that Dr. Troian presented
at the meeting.
95.
Dr. Troian also explained that she had used
the placeholder name while she was seeking a
new assistant on the project, but that she
had been unable to find one in time for the
conference.
96.
Dr. Gharib admitted his familiarity with the
informality of APS abstracts, and that it
was common practice for presenters to give
more than one talk at APS meetings, as Dr.
Troian had, but he was not interested in Dr.
Troian’s response to his and Dr. Rosakis’
accusations. Instead, Dr. Gharib stated that
FBI agents had returned to Caltech two weeks
earlier to look for Dr. Gat.
97.
Drs. Gharib and Rosakis reiterated that they
were upset about the FBI’s visits to Caltech
and about having “a faculty member that
attracts these situations.” Dr. Rosakis
claimed that it was Dr. Gharib’s
responsibility as Vice Provost of Research
to ensure that the FBI did not come to
campus. Both officials accused Dr. Troian of
harming Caltech’s reputation.
Dr.
Kaushik Bhattacharya, Executive Chair of the
Caltech Dept. of Mechanical Engineering and
close friend of Dr. Rosakis, emailed Dr.
Troian saying he was considering terminating
her affiliation within the department.
98.
On December 17, 2012, Dr. Kaushik
Bhattacharya, Executive Chair of the
Department of Mechanical Engineering, of
which Dr. Troian is a faculty member,
emailed Dr. Troian to tell her that he was
considering terminating her affiliation
within the department.
99.
Dr. Bhattacharya is a close friend and
colleague of Dr. Rosakis.
100.
Dr. Bhattacharya claimed that Dr. Troian was
not sufficiently participating in department
activities, even though Dr. Troian has been
actively involved in recruiting and advising
students in the department since 2007.
101. Dr. Troian responded to Dr.
Bhattacharya’s email with a lengthy rebuttal
on January 4, 2013, and contacted him again
on February 27, 2013, but he never
responded.
102.
On December 18, 2012, the day after Dr.
Bhattacharya’s email, Dr. Stolper notified
Dr. Troian that he and the two other
selection committee members had denied her
proposal for $592,000 in funding from the FY
2013 JPL/Caltech President’s and Director’s
Fund for her collaborative research at JPL.
Dr. Troian was shocked at the denial because
JPL officials had strongly supported her
proposal.
103.
On December 21, 2012, Dr. Stolper telephoned
Dr. Troian to reiterate the “seriousness” of
Drs. Gharib’s and Rosakis’s allegations that
she had misappropriated Dr.
Niavaranikheiri’s work and had used a
placeholder name in the 2012 APS abstract.
He told Dr. Troian that her actions
constituted “research misconduct,” and had
“irreparably harmed” the reputation of the
Institute.
104.
Charges of research and academic misconduct
are among the most serious and damaging
against a faculty member. Such charges, even
if later withdrawn, have far reaching,
long-lasting repercussions that can damage
an academic and consulting career
permanently.
105.
Dr. Stolper asked Dr. Troian to send him the
slides from her APS presentation, and she
immediately did so via intra-campus mail.
Edward
Stolper honored by Israel’s Hebrew
University in 2012. “Prof. Stolper is a
longtime friend of the Hebrew University who
also headed the first international academic
review committee at the Faculty of Science”
106.
On Christmas Eve 2012, Dr. Stolper emailed
Dr. Troian that he had not received the APS
slides, and insinuated that she was delaying
sending them in order to change them. Dr.
Troian therefore spent part of Christmas Eve
in her office at Caltech, re-transmitting
the presentation files to Dr. Stolper.
107.
On December 29, 2012, Dr. Stolper wrote to
Dr. Troian: “there can be no mitigation [of
the alleged misconduct] based on any
circumstances I can envision,” which
effectively declared Dr. Troian guilty
before any investigation.
108.
On January 4, 2013, Dr. Troian sent Dr.
Stolper a detailed letter explaining that
Drs. Gharib and Rosakis’s allegations were
in retaliation for her speaking to the FBI,
and that she had never engaged in any
misconduct.
109.
Caltech’s Whistleblower Policy, which is
part of Dr. Troian’s contract with Caltech,
prohibits “retaliation against an individual
who makes a good faith disclosure of
suspected wrongful conduct” and provides
that if “an employee believes s/he has been
the subject of retaliation for making a
good-faith disclosure, s/he is encouraged to
contact her/his supervisor.” Dr. Troian’s
January 4, 2013 letter was the second time
she had complained to Dr. Stolper, her
supervisor, about Drs. Rosakis and Gharib’s
retaliation against her for her disclosures
about Dr. Gat to the FBI. Instead of
investigating Dr. Troian’s retaliation
complaints in accordance with Caltech’s
Whistleblower Policy, Dr. Stolper further
conspired with Drs. Gharib and Rosakis to
silence Dr. Troian and to push her out of
her job at Caltech.
109.
Caltech’s Whistleblower Policy, which is
part of Dr. Troian’s contract with Caltech,
prohibits “retaliation against an individual
who makes a good faith disclosure of
suspected wrongful conduct” and provides
that if “an employee believes s/he has been
the subject of retaliation for making a
good-faith disclosure, s/he is encouraged to
contact her/his supervisor.” Dr. Troian’s
January 4, 2013 letter was the second time
she had complained to Dr. Stolper, her
supervisor, about Drs. Rosakis and Gharib’s
retaliation against her for her disclosures
about Dr. Gat to the FBI. Instead of
investigating Dr. Troian’s retaliation
complaints in accordance with Caltech’s
Whistleblower Policy, Dr. Stolper further
conspired with Drs. Gharib and Rosakis to
silence Dr. Troian and to push her out of
her job at Caltech.
110.
On February 26, 2014, Dr. Stolper told Dr.
Troian that he intended to move forward with
an investigation. He claimed that he had
received written documentation related to
Dr. Troian’s alleged misconduct from Drs.
Gharib and Rosakis, but refused to share it
with her.
Caltech Conducted a Sham
Investigation into the Charges Against Dr.
Troian and Issued False Findings Against
Her.
Grace
C. Fisher-Adams, Director, Office of
Research Compliance. “Caltech denied Dr.
Troian the use of counsel throughout the
investigation, despite her requests, but it
used Dr. Fisher-Adams, a licensed and active
attorney in the State
of California, to advocate on behalf of Dr.
Gharib and Dr. Stolper. Dr. Troian
challenged Dr. Fisher-Adams’ role in the
investigation from the start because Dr.
Fisher-Adams reported directly to Dr. Gharib,
and
therefore, had a conflict of
interest in violation of Caltech policy.”
111.
On March 1, 2013, Dr. Grace Fisher-Adams,
Caltech’s Director of Research Compliance,
emailed Dr. Troian a letter from Dr. Stolper
stating that he had instituted an
investigation against her to address: (1)
your admitted listing of your cat as first
author on the submitted and published
abstract; and (2) an allegation by Dr.
Anoosheh Niavaranikheiri, your postdoctoral
fellow from 2011 to 2012, that the work
presented in the abstract is, in part, her
work for which she should have received
credit as a coauthor.
112.
Caltech’s charges against Dr. Troian
amounted to charges of plagiarism and
falsification of the research record, which
constitute “research misconduct” under the
Misconduct Policy set forth in the Caltech
Faculty Handbook. Faculty Handbook at 7/1.
Dr. Stolper had in fact already told Dr.
Troian that the charges against her
constituted “research misconduct.” Dr.
Troian was therefore entitled to the
protections set forth in the Handbook’s
Misconduct Policy.
113.
Rather than follow the Handbook’s Misconduct
Policy, however, Dr. Stolper’s March 1, 2013
letter said that Caltech was using the
Misconduct Policy only as “guidance,” which,
in effect, allowed Caltech to bend the rules
and find Dr. Troian guilty regardless of the
evidence uncovered in the investigation.
Throughout Caltech’s investigation, Dr.
Fisher-Adams and members of the
Investigation Committee repeatedly denied
that Dr. Troian had been charged with
research misconduct and reiterated that they
were merely using the Misconduct Policy as a
“framework” for the investigation.
114.
Pursuant to the Misconduct Policy, Dr.
Stolper assembled an Investigation Committee
to investigate the allegations against Dr.
Troian. Dr. Stolper hand-picked the
committee.
115.
Between March 1, 2013 and May 8, 2013, Dr.
Stolper’s hand-picked Investigation
Committee interviewed witnesses and
collected evidence related to the charges
against Dr. Troian. On April 19, 2013, Dr.
Troian submitted 198 pages of supporting
documentation in her defense, though Caltech
refused to show her Dr. Niavaranikheiri’s
purported complaint or to identify which
text, slides, plots, equations, data, or
results were in dispute.
"Dr.
Stolper hand-picked the individuals on the
Investigation Committee. Not a single member
of the committee possessed technical
competence in Dr. Troian’s field of
theoretical physics and molecular simulation
techniques... Dr. Konstantinos Giapis is a
chemical engineer..."
116.
On May 8, 2013, Dr. Troian attended a
hearing before the Investigation Committee
to address the two charges against her. Dr.
Fisher-Adams also attended. Caltech denied
Dr. Troian’s request that a neutral third
party document the proceedings. The hearing
lasted nearly three hours. Towards the end
of the hearing, the Committee asked Dr.
Troian to immediately turn over the slides
for another ten minute talk on thermal slip
that she presented at the 2013 APS meeting.
117.
Following the hearing, Dr. Troian submitted
an additional 200 pages of emails between
herself and Dr. Niavaranikheiri to the
Committee, all of which definitively proved
that Dr. Niavaranikheiri and Dr. Troian had
a friendly working relationship, contrary to
what Drs. Stolper, Gharib, and Rosakis, and
later the Committee, alleged.
118.
On July 1, 2013, the same day that Dr.
Stolper became Interim President, the
Investigation Committee released a Draft
Report dated June 25, 2013. The Report
ignored Dr. Troian’s exculpatory evidence,
and presented new and unfounded allegations
that Caltech had never given her an
opportunity to address. [Caltech has
since named a new president:
Thomas Felix Rosenbaum.]
119.
The Draft Report also revealed that Dr.
Niavaranikheiri had never, in fact, filed a
formal complaint against Dr. Troian. She had
emailed Caltech’s Human Resources Department
six weeks prior to Dr. Troian’s 2012 APS
presentation to inquire as to the identity
of M. Pucci, the name that Dr. Troian had
used as a placeholder while seeking a new
assistant. She subsequently responded to an
email from Dr. Gharib pertaining to her
research with Dr. Troian. Upon information
and belief, Dr. Niavaranikheiri thereafter
refused to cooperate with the Investigation
Committee, refused to be interviewed by the
Investigation Committee, and refused to
provide the Investigation Committee with
actual evidence of plagiarism or
misappropriation.
120.
On August 19, 2013, Dr. Troian responded to
the Draft Report with a 125 page
point-by-point rebuttal in her defense.
“Melany
Hunt, Vice Provost of Academic Affairs,
acting at the direction of Provost and
then-Interim President Stolper, ratified the
Committee’s findings and issued a decision
recommending three sanctions against Dr.
Troian…”
121.
On September 1, 2013, the Investigation
Committee issued a Final Report finding Dr.
Troian guilty of wrongdoing, despite clear
evidence to the contrary. The Report omitted
seventy pages of Dr. Troian’s exculpatory
evidence. Dr. Fisher-Adams claimed this
omission was an error.
122.
The Final Report also included Dr. Troian’s
confidential January 4, 2013 letter to Dr.
Stolper, which revealed that she had spoken
to the FBI about apparent illegal activity
at Caltech.
123.
On October 17, 2013, Melany Hunt, Vice
Provost of Academic Affairs, acting at the
direction of Provost and then-Interim
President Stolper, ratified the Committee’s
findings and issued a decision recommending
three sanctions against Dr. Troian: 1) Dr.
Troian was to draft a letter notifying APS
that she had violated their policies with
her November 2012 and March 2013
presentations; and if she refused to do so,
Dr. Hunt would notify APS herself; 2) Dr.
Troian was to acknowledge Dr.
Niavaranikheiri in all future publications
related to any of her “work on molecular
dynamics simulations at liquid/solid
interfaces;” and 3) Dr. Troian was to send
“copies of preprints of future papers on
this topic to the Office of the Provost and
EAS Division Office,” namely Drs. Gharib and
Rosakis.
The second and third
penalties, i.e. the monitoring of Dr.
Troian’s future work, were taken directly
from the Handbook’s Misconduct Policy. Dr.
Hunt further directed that a copy of her
decision be retained in the Office of the
Provost and in the EAS Division Office, and
it is now in Dr. Troian’s personnel file.
124.
Pursuant to the Misconduct Policy, Dr.
Troian appealed Dr. Hunt’s decision on
November 1, 2013.
125.
Dr. Stolper, in his capacity as then-Interim
President, was tasked with deciding Dr.
Troian’s appeal.
126.
On March 18, 2014, Dr. Troian met with Dr.
Stolper at his request.
127.
At the meeting, Dr. Stolper refused to
discuss the facts of her case or the
underlying charges, as the Handbook requires
at the appeal stage. He instead told Dr.
Troian, “I don’t know what the facts are and
I don’t care.” He stated that he could “make
things go away” if she admitted that she had
exercised “poor judgment” and mistreated
students, postdocs, and colleagues at
Caltech. He told Dr. Troian the exact words
he wanted to hear her use to confess to the
false allegations of misconduct, and stated
it “avoids having to find the truth.” He
emphasized there was no point in discussing
what happened when or who said what.
128.
Dr. Stolper acknowledged that he did not
believe that Dr. Troian misappropriated Dr.
Niavaranikheiri’s work, but nonetheless
asked Dr. Troian to falsely confess to doing
so and he would dismiss the report. When Dr.
Troian refused, and told Dr. Stolper that
crediting Dr. Niavaranikheiri on the
abstract would be fraud, he said, “You say
it’s fraud – I don’t think it’s fraud. I
think it’s just how you make the world go
round on something like this.” He quoted
lines from the movie Harvey, in which the
character stated, “My mother would say
‘Elwood, in this world you can be oh so very
smart or oh so very nice.’ For years I tried
smart – I recommend nice.”
129.
Dr. Troian indicated to Dr. Stolper that the
investigation was part of Caltech’s
retaliatory campaign against her for her
reports to the FBI. Dr. Stolper threatened,
“God, if you think you’ve had a bad two
years, wait for the next two years of being
confrontational with Caltech. It just won’t
be fun.” He told Dr. Troian to call him with
her decision and repeatedly directed her not
to put anything in writing. Dr. Stolper told
Dr. Troian that if she did not cooperate
with him, he would affirm the findings
against her and she would be “miserable.” On
April 11, 2014, Dr. Troian wrote Dr. Stolper
a letter that memorialized the appeal
meeting and indicated that she would not
admit to the false charges against her.
130.
On April 14, 2014, three days after Dr.
Troian’s letter, Dr. Stolper issued a
decision on Dr. Troian’s appeal that
affirmed the Investigation Committee’s
findings against her. Pursuant to the
Faculty Handbook’s Misconduct Policy, Dr.
Stolper’s decision was final.
131.
Several days later, on April 22, 2014, Dr.
Stolper notified Dr. Troian that he had also
denied her proposal for $520,952 in funding
from the FY 2014 JPL/Caltech President’s and
Director’s Fund for her research at JPL,
though her proposal had, again, received
wide support from top officials at JPL.
Caltech’s Investigation of
Dr. Troian Violated Its Misconduct Policy.
132.
The Misconduct Policy provides that faculty
members accused of research misconduct are
entitled to an investigation and hearing,
and that, upon recommendation of the
appropriate academic division chair (“DC”)
and Provost, the President renders a final
decision. Faculty Handbook at 7/1.
A. Caltech Denied Dr. Troian
an Inquiry into the Charges it Levied
Against Her.
133.
Charges of research misconduct must proceed
through three stages: Inquiry,
Investigation, and Resolution. During the
Inquiry stage, the Misconduct Policy
requires: [T]he DC [Division Chair] [to]
notify the respondent in writing of the
charges and process to follow. . . . The
nature of the inquiry . . . should be worked
out by the DC in consultation with the
complainant and respondent. . . . A written
report shall be prepared that states what
evidence was reviewed, summarizes relevant
interviews, and includes the conclusions of
the inquiry. The individual(s) against whom
the allegation was made shall be given a
copy of the report of the inquiry. If they
comment on that report, their comments may
be made part of the record. Faculty Handbook
at 7/2 (emphasis added).
134.
Caltech failed to provide Dr. Troian with an
Inquiry stage.
135.
Dr. Troian received written documentation of
the charges against her for the first time
on March 1, 2013, when Dr. Stolper sent her
a letter stating that he had decided to
initiate a formal investigation.
136.
Dr. Troian protested the lack of Inquiry and
Inquiry Report for the first time on March
5, 2013, and again on May 8 and June 11,
2013. In response, Caltech claimed that Dr.
Troian’s December 14, 2012 meeting with Drs.
Gharib and Rosakis constituted the
“Inquiry.” However, Dr. Troian was not
presented with any written charges or
evidence of misconduct before or during that
meeting, during which Drs. Gharib and
Rosakis repeatedly accused Dr. Troian of
bringing the FBI to campus.
137.
The Institute failed to afford Dr. Troian
any participation in an inquiry “process.”
It further failed to collect any evidence
from her, provide her with a written “report
of the inquiry,” or give her an opportunity
to comment on any such report, even though
Dr. Stolper acknowledged on February 26,
2014 that he received the report from Drs.
Gharib and Rosakis.
B. Caltech Appointed an
Investigation Committee Lacking Technical
Competence in Dr. Troian’s Field.
"Dr.
Stolper hand-picked the individuals on the
Investigation Committee. Not a single member
of the committee possessed technical
competence in Dr. Troian’s field of
theoretical physics and molecular simulation
techniques... Dr.
Buchwald, the Chair, is a historian of
science..." His wife, also a Caltech history
professor, is an Israeli who graduated from
Technion.
138.
The Misconduct Policy states that “[t]he
principal criteria for [investigation
committee] membership shall be fairness and
wisdom, technical competence in the field in
question, and avoidance of conflict of
interest. ” Faculty Handbook at 7/3
(emphasis added). “Membership of the
committee need not be restricted to the
faculty of the Institute.” Id.
139.
Dr. Stolper hand-picked the individuals on
the Investigation Committee. Not a single
member of the committee possessed technical
competence in Dr. Troian’s field of
theoretical physics and molecular simulation
techniques. Dr. Buchwald, the Chair, is a
historian of science, Dr. Paul Dimotakis is
an aeronautical engineer, Dr. Konstantinos
Giapis is a chemical engineer, and Dr. Ellen
Rothenberg is a biologist. The Policy
explicitly permitted Caltech to seek experts
outside the Institute to sit on the
Committee, but Caltech rejected this option.
Dr. Stolper ignored Dr. Troian’s request
that at least one of the individuals she
identified with experience in her field be
added to the Committee.
C. Caltech Permitted Biased
Individuals to Serve on the Investigation
Committee.
140.
The Misconduct Policy states that any
“semblance of conflict of interest must
rigorously be avoided at all stages,”
Faculty Handbook at 7/1, and “[t]he
principal criteria for [investigation
committee] membership shall be . . .
avoidance of conflict of interest,” Faculty
Handbook at 7/3 (emphasis added).
"Dr.
Stolper hand-picked the individuals on the
Investigation Committee. Not a single member
of the committee possessed
technical competence
in Dr. Troian’s field of theoretical physics
and molecular simulation techniques... Dr.
Ellen Rothenberg is a biologist."
141.
Caltech ignored Dr. Troian’s concerns of
bias of the Committee members. One half of
the Committee had clear allegiances to Drs.
Gharib and Rosakis, the individuals who
initiated the complaint and campaign of
retaliation against Dr. Troian.
142.
Dr. Dimotakis has been close friends with
Dr. Rosakis for over thirty years. The two
have published together, and they shared a
research grant shortly before the
investigation commenced. Dr. Dimotakis was
also Chief Technologist of JPL during 2010
when Dr. Troian reported Dr. Gat’s possible
ITAR violations; he was aware that Dr.
Troian had spoken to the FBI.
143.
Dr. Giapis is a friend and colleague of Dr.
Dietzel’s Ph.D. thesis supervisor. Drs.
Rosakis and Gharib had previously accused
Dr. Troian of mistreating Dr. Dietzel while
he was a postdoc. Dr. Dimotakis recommended
to Dr. Stolper that Dr. Giapis serve on the
Committee.
144.
Dr. Troian complained of the conflicts of
interest on the part of Dr. Dimotakis and
Dr. Giapis to Committee Chair Buchwald, but
he dismissed them.
D. Caltech’s Investigation
Exceeded the Scope of the Charges Against
Dr. Troian.
“Caltech
ignored Dr. Troian’s concerns of bias of the
Committee members. One half of the Committee
had clear allegiances to Drs. Gharib and
Rosakis, the individuals who initiated the
complaint
and campaign of retaliation
against Dr. Troian…” Dr. Paul E. Dimotakis,
Professor of Aeronautics Paul E. Dimotakis,
“has been close friends with Dr. Rosakis for
over thirty years…”
145.
The Misconduct Policy requires that the
accused faculty member be informed of “all
allegations” against her “so that a response
may be prepared.” Faculty Handbook at 7/3.
In violation of this provision, the
Committee investigated additional
allegations of misconduct without notifying
Dr. Troian of the new charges.
146.
Shortly after initiating the investigation,
Caltech demanded that Dr. Troian turn over
“all materials in connection with the
allegations against her.” When Dr. Troian
asked the Committee to define the charges
with greater specificity so that she could
collect the materials for the investigation,
Caltech refused to provide further
clarification, and instead claimed that it
was not constrained by the charges in Dr.
Stolper’s letter but rather that, “the
committee’s investigation may lead it in
other directions depending on their ongoing
findings . . . .”
147.
In the process of the investigation, Caltech
insisted that Dr. Troian’s entire laptop
computer be imaged even though it contained
personal medical records, Department of
Defense materials that federal law
prohibited from further distribution, and
materials pertaining to Dr. Troian’s
conversations with the FBI.
148.
Dr. Troian was forced to hire an attorney to
protect her privacy and prevent unauthorized
access to federally restricted material.
149.
When the Investigation Committee issued its
Draft Report dated June 25, 2013, Dr. Troian
learned for the first time that the
Committee had investigated conduct related
to an abstract she submitted for an APS
meeting held in March 2013. Caltech failed
to give Dr. Troian notice that it had
charged her with misconduct related to the
2013 APS meeting, and she had no opportunity
to rebut this false and unsupported charge
at her hearing. The Committee’s Draft Report
nevertheless concluded that she had “adopted
authorship manipulation a second time for
rule-evasion purposes during submission of
the 2013 APS March meeting abstract . . .
including backdating the abstract submission
date to the original submission date,
compromising the scientific record.”
E. Caltech Failed to Apply
the Appropriate Evidentiary and Mens Rea
Standards to
Its Findings.
150.
The Misconduct Policy provides:
[A] finding of
research misconduct requires that: There be
a significant departure from accepted
practices of the scientific community for
maintaining the integrity of the research
record; The misconduct be committed
intentionally, or knowingly, or in reckless
disregard of accepted practices; and The
allegation be proven by a preponderance of
the evidence.Faculty Handbook at 7/1
(emphasis added).
151.
With respect to Charge 1, the Investigation
Committee made no finding that Dr. Troian’s
use of a placeholder name on the 2012 APS
abstract constituted a significant departure
from accepted practices at APS conferences,
or that Dr. Troian engaged in this conduct
intentionally, knowingly, or in reckless
disregard of accepted practices. In fact,
Dr. Troian presented authoritative evidence
that APS routinely accommodates its
conference participants by permitting
alterations to abstracts after submission
and multiple talks by a single author. Dr.
Gharib even conceded this fact during the
alleged “Inquiry” meeting on December 14,
2012.
152.
With respect to Charge 2, Dr. Troian
produced 333 pages of evidence to the
Committee that her ten-minute presentations
at the APS conferences did not plagiarize
Dr. Niavaranikheiri’s work, but the
Investigation Committee found her guilty of
this charge without applying a preponderance
of the evidence standard to the evidence
before it. In fact, there is no evidence
that Dr. Troian used or referenced any of
Dr. Niavaranikheiri’s work in her abstract
or her ten minute presentations. The
Committee also failed to find that Dr.
Troian’s conduct related to Charge 2
represented a significant departure from
accepted practices in her field or that she
acted intentionally, knowingly, or in
reckless disregard for accepted practices.
153.
Dr. Troian submitted a 17-page appeal to Dr.
Hunt challenging the Committee’s findings
after it issued its Final Report. Neither
Dr. Hunt nor Dr. Stolper referred to any of
Dr. Troian’s evidence or the appropriate
evidentiary standards in affirming the
Committee’s findings.
F. Caltech Denied Dr. Troian
a Proper Appeal.
154.
The Misconduct Policy provides that a
charged party may appeal an adverse decision
“to the President on grounds of improper
procedure or capricious or arbitrary
decision based on the evidence in the
record,” but any appeals process must be
“separated organizationally from the inquiry
and investigation.” Faculty Handbook at 7/4.
155.
Dr. Stolper drew up the charges against Dr.
Troian and hand-picked the Investigation
Committee. The Policy therefore prohibited
him from acting as the individual to whom
Dr. Troian appealed, even though he was
Interim President at the time. Further, Dr.
Stolper could not render a fair decision in
Dr. Troian’s appeal since he admitted that
he had pre-determined her guilt before she
was charged. His bias was evident in his
conduct during her appeal on March 18, 2014,
including his prohibition against making a
record of her appeal, which violated the
Misconduct Policy’s admonition that “all
stages of the procedure should be fully
documented,” Id. at 7/1, his statements that
he did not “care about the facts,” and his
refusal to review the Committee’s and Dr.
Hunt’s findings.
G. Caltech Violated Dr.
Troian’s Right to be Treated with Justice
and Fairness.
156.
The Misconduct Policy requires that “[a]ll
parties must be treated with justice and
fairness.” Id. Caltech deprived Dr. Troian
of just and fair treatment by denying her
the benefit of enumerated rights in the
Misconduct Policy and by subjecting her to
an inherently unfair process pre-determined
to find her guilty.
157.
From the initiation of the investigation in
February 2013 through the date of her
hearing on May 8, 2013, those investigating
Dr. Troian, including Dr. Stolper,
repeatedly told her that the charges against
her arose from a complaint Caltech received
from Dr. Niavaranikheiri, Dr. Troian’s
former postdoc. In July 2013, when Dr.
Troian received the Investigation
Committee’s Draft Report, she learned for
the first time that the Committee had never
interviewed Dr. Niavaranikheiri, and that
Dr. Niavaranikheiri had never presented any
evidence of plagiarism or misappropriation
to the Committee. She also learned for the
first time that Drs. Gharib and Rosakis, not
Dr. Niavaranikheiri, had pressured Dr.
Stolper to initiate the investigation.
158.
The Draft Report revealed that six weeks
before the APS DFD conference, Dr.
Niavaranikheiri had emailed Caltech to
inquire about the identity of the first
author on Dr. Troian’s 2012 APS abstract.
The email contained no accusation that Dr.
Troian had engaged in plagiarism or that she
had misappropriated Dr. Niavaranikheiri’s
work. Dr. Gharib received the inquiry on or
about October 3, 2012. Rather than speak to
Dr. Troian about the identity of M. Pucci
upon receipt of Dr. Niavaranikheiri’s
inquiry, Dr. Gharib concealed its existence
from Dr. Troian, and requested that Dr.
Niavaranikheiri provide additional
information on the work that she had
performed with Dr. Troian. Dr. Gharib then
waited until after Dr. Troian delivered her
ten-minute presentation at the November APS
DFD conference to bring false charges of
misconduct against her.
159.
Drs. Gharib, Rosakis, and Stolper used Dr.
Niavaranikheiri as the straw-man complainant
so they could institute proceedings against
Dr. Troian in an effort to push her out of
Caltech for cooperating with the FBI. Dr.
Niavaranikheiri was never interviewed and
did not serve as a witness in the
Committee’s investigation.
160.
Caltech denied Dr. Troian fairness and
justice by willfully misrepresenting or
ignoring more than 500 pages of exculpatory
evidence she presented to the Investigation
Committee.
161.
In April 2013, before the Committee issued
its Draft Report, Dr. Troian submitted
evidence that she had begun her own
independent thermal slip simulations in June
2012 and was collecting her own data by July
2012, nearly one month before
she submitted the 2012 APS abstract. The
Committee nevertheless falsely stated in its
Draft Report that Dr. Troian did not begin
her own simulations until after she had
submitted the abstract in August 2012. The
Committee cited this false factual
allegation to support its erroneous
conclusion that Dr. Troian had relied on Dr.
Niavaranikheiri’s work for the 2012 APS
abstract. Dr. Troian highlighted the
Committee’s factual misrepresentation in her
August 19, 2013 rebuttal to the Draft
Report, but the Committee failed to correct
it. Instead, in the Final Report, the
Committee falsely stated that Dr. Troian had
no independent results available to her by
the time she submitted the 2012 APS abstract
and used this knowing misrepresentation to
support its conclusion that Dr. Troian had
based her abstract on Dr. Niavaranikheiri’s
work.
162.
Dr. Troian submitted 198 pages of evidence
in advance of the hearing on May 8, 2013.
The Committee refused Dr. Troian’s efforts
to review this evidence during the hearing,
even though it provided answers to numerous
questions the Committee posed to her. The
Committee also omitted 70 pages of exhibits
that Dr. Troian submitted to rebut the Draft
Report from the record accompanying the
Final Report, and upon information and
belief, did not review those documents. Dr.
Troian’s evidence definitively demonstrated
that her results were consistent with over
30 years of results from the scientific
literature. Conversely, Dr.
Niavaranikheiri’s results were inconsistent
with fundamental laws of physics, which
explained why Dr. Niavaranikheiri did not
warrant acknowledgement in Dr. Troian’s APS
abstracts or presentations. Dr. Troian’s
evidence was uncontroverted, but the
Committee nevertheless concluded that Dr.
Niavaranikheiri warranted acknowledgement,
which demonstrated that the Committee
willfully disregarded Dr. Troian’s evidence.
163.
Dr. Troian also provided to the Committee 70
examples of changes listed in the 2012 APS
DFD Program Corrigenda, including changes to
abstract authors before and after the
conference. Two of these changes resulted in
the same researcher presenting twice at the
conference, which is precisely what occurred
in Dr. Troian’s case. This evidence
definitively proved that APS approved such
changes, but the Committee failed to
acknowledge this evidence in finding that
Dr. Troian used a placeholder name to
circumvent APS rules.
164.
Dr. Stolper explicitly stated that he did
not “care about the facts” during Dr.
Troian’s appeal.
165.
Caltech further denied Dr. Troian a just and
fair investigation by crediting the
testimony of witnesses it knew were biased
against her, including Dr. Manoochehr
Koochesfahani, who is a longtime friend and
collaborator of Dr. Gharib and who obtained
his Ph.D. in Aeronautics from Caltech in
1983, where Dr. Dimotakis was his thesis
supervisor.
166.
Dr. Fisher-Adams’s role in the investigation
also violated Dr. Troian’s right to just and
fair treatment. The Misconduct Policy’s
provision on Inquiries states that “every
effort should be made to make personal legal
counsel unnecessary for either complainant
or respondent at this and all other stages.”
Faculty Handbook at 7/2.
167.
Caltech denied Dr. Troian the use of counsel
throughout the investigation, despite her
requests, but it used Dr. Fisher-Adams, a
licensed and active attorney in the State of
California, to advocate on behalf of Dr.
Gharib and Dr. Stolper.
168.
Dr. Troian challenged Dr. Fisher-Adams’ role
in the investigation from the start because
Dr. Fisher-Adams reported directly to Dr.
Gharib, and therefore, had a conflict of
interest in violation of Caltech policy.
Caltech nevertheless insisted on Dr.
Fisher-Adams’s participation and falsely
claimed she was merely providing
“administrative support” to the
Investigation Committee.
169.
In fact, Dr. Fisher-Adams advocated on
behalf of the Caltech administrators who
brought the charges against Dr. Troian
throughout the investigation. When Dr.
Troian met with Dr. Fisher-Adams for the
first time on March 1, 2013, Dr.
Fisher-Adams asked Dr. Troian hostile
questions about the charges against her
under the pretext that her answers would
help Dr. Fisher-Adams organize documents for
the Committee. When Dr. Troian explained to
Dr. Fisher-Adams that it would take her some
time to collect the evidence the Committee
sought, Dr. Fisher-Adams accused Dr. Troian
of stonewalling in an effort to manipulate
evidence. During Dr. Troian’s hearing before
the Investigation Committee on May 8, 2013,
Dr. Fisher-Adams twice interrupted the
proceedings, once to defend Caltech’s
actions in denying Dr. Troian an Inquiry,
and a second time to curtail discussion
about the nature of Dr. Niavaranikheiri’s
alleged complaint against Dr. Troian, which
she and Caltech purposefully obfuscated
throughout the investigation. Dr.
Fisher-Adams was also responsible for
transcribing the hearing proceedings, which
upon and information and belief were audio
recorded. Dr. Troian was never given a copy
or transcript of the audio recording. The
“transcript” Dr. Fisher-Adams made of the
three hour hearing was an abbreviated and
inaccurate 11-page summary that deliberately
obscured Dr. Troian’s statements and deleted
or omitted facts helpful to Dr. Troian and
damaging to Caltech.
170.
Dr. Stolper’s stated bias against Dr. Troian
before the investigation began renders
Caltech’s proceedings inherently unfair. In
December 2012, before issuing the charging
document, Dr. Stolper wrote the following to
Dr. Troian:
[I]n my opinion, there can be no mitigation
based on any circumstances I can currently
envision (including those that you have
offered related to your postdoctoral
scholar) for having listed your cat as the
first author on a submission for
publication. There can be no interpretation
other than this was a purposeful
misrepresentation of the people involved in
the work that you presented. As academics
and scientists such behavior cannot be
sanctioned; there is no middle ground when
it comes to honest and accurate
representation of our work and who is
credited with having participated in it.
171.
Despite Dr. Stolper’s apparent and
disqualifying bias against Dr. Troian, he
was the official who drafted the charges
against her, hand-picked the Investigation
Committee, heard Dr. Troian’s appeal, and
adopted the Committee’s findings against her
as Caltech’s final decision.
Caltech’s Additional, Ongoing
Retaliation against Dr. Troian
172.
Caltech administrators continue to obstruct
Dr. Troian’s work and to impede her career,
and have done so since she first reported
Dr. Gat’s illegal activity in 2010.
173.
On September 18, 2013, seventeen days after
the Investigation Committee issued its Final
Report, Caltech Property Services sent a
notice to eleven administrators and staff
implying that Dr. Troian was responsible for
a $378,239 missing piece of laboratory
equipment. Caltech officials later
acknowledged that the equipment had never
belonged to Dr. Troian, but did not retract
the memos containing the false statements.
174.
In January 2014, Dr. Hunt ordered a doctoral
student who had been working with Dr. Troian
for over two years to exclude all research
with Dr. Troian from his doctoral thesis.
Dr. Hunt’s actions were highly unusual,
because Dr. Troian was the student’s
doctoral co-advisor.
175.
Caltech deliberately excluded Dr. Troian
from all meetings with the Engineering and
Applied Sciences (EAS) Visiting Committee
during their March 2014 visit to Caltech,
even though Caltech invited her to meet with
that Committee during their last visit in
2007. The Committee consists of prominent
Caltech trustees, business leaders, and
faculty from leading universities who visit
Caltech every five years and advise the
President, Provost, and EAS Division Chair.
Dr. Rosakis invited many of Troian’s faculty
colleagues to meet with Committee members
during their 2014 visit, which allowed them
to shape the division’s agenda, but Dr.
Rosakis deliberately excluded Dr. Troian.
176.
Caltech also deliberately excluded Dr.
Troian from a keynote Fall 2014 departmental
fundraising event, “Applied Physics and
Materials Science in the 21st century,” even
though Dr. Troian’s research encompasses the
topical areas discussed and she requested to
participate. Nearly every senior faculty
member in Dr. Troian’s field except her
presented. Dr. Troian’s exclusion denied her
the opportunity to advertise her work to
prospective donors, alumnae, business
leaders, heads of funding agencies, and the
Director of DARPA.
177.
Caltech has systematically prevented Dr.
Troian from serving on administrative,
advisory, and honorific committees on campus
since the summer of 2010, when she first
reported Dr. Gat’s illegal activity. Service
on such committees is vital to faculty
members’ visibility on campus, enhances
opportunities for scientific collaboration
and funding requests, and is a factor that
Drs. Rosakis and Stolper consider in
awarding EAS faculty members annual pay
raises. As a senior tenured faculty member
with extensive experience in both industry
and academia, and as a frequent advisor and
consultant to universities, government, and
industry, Dr. Troian qualifies to serve on
Caltech committees, and she has consistently
requested to do so. Drs. Rosakis and Stolper
refuse to appoint her or to promote her to
any administrative posts.
178.
On information and belief, Dr. Troian’s
annual salary increases have been less than
those of her peers since she reported Dr.
Gat’s illegal activity to the FBI.
179.
On information and belief, Caltech denied
Dr. Troian a courtesy appointment in the
Physics Department in 2011, though she
clearly qualified for the appointment, and
it is a routine matter for Caltech faculty
to receive courtesy appointments.
180.
As a result of the inordinate amount of time
and energy Dr. Troian has spent defending
herself against Caltech’s baseless charges
and retaliation, she has not been able to
finalize research she would have otherwise
finalized; has had to decline numerous
outside consulting opportunities which she
would have otherwise assumed; and has had to
decline numerous invitations to attend
workshops, lectures, and roundtables, which
she would have otherwise accepted, including
an invitation to spend three-and-a-half
months at the Isaac Newton Institute for
Mathematical Sciences in Cambridge, England,
an invitation by the Editors in Chief of the
Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics to
write a review article, and an invitation by
the Chairman and Editor-in-Chief of World
Scientific Publishing Company to write a
volume of lecture notes.
Caltech Recently Padded Dr. Troian’s
Personnel File with Falsified Documents in
Preparation for this Lawsuit.
181.
On April 9, 2013, Caltech issued Dr.
Troian’s former counsel a copy of her
personnel file, at his request.
182.
At that time, Dr. Troian discovered that
Drs. Gharib and Rosakis had placed in the
file a signed disciplinary letter dated July
30, 2012, which falsely stated that three
postdocs had “serious complaints” against
her and that these alleged complaints were
the topic of their July 18, 2012 meeting.
The letter omitted the fact that Drs. Gharib
and Rosakis had used that meeting to
question and rebuke Dr. Troian for speaking
with the FBI and for reporting Dr. Gat’s
ITAR violations.
183.
On September 20, 2014, Caltech again issued
Dr. Troian a copy of her personnel file,
upon her request.
184.
The September 2014 file contains various
additional falsified documents that predate
April 2013, when Caltech last released her
file.
185.
Caltech has padded Dr. Troian’s personnel
file with false, negative information about
her in preparation for this lawsuit.
186.
The September 2014 file contains a false
summary by Drs. Gharib and Rosakis of their
December 14, 2012 meeting with Dr. Troian,
which falsely attributes statements to her,
and claims: “this latest episode is
indicative of ongoing concerns about Prof.
Troian’s professional behavior . . . This is
not an isolated event . . . we recommend
that the Provost assemble a committee to
look into her actions in light of potential
faculty misconduct.” This document
definitively demonstrates that it was Drs.
Gharib and Rosakis who initiated the false
charges of misconduct against Dr. Troian.
187.
The newly-released file also includes a
document, dated 2007, that contains wholly
false allegations of Dr. Troian’s “abuse” of
Caltech staff. Neither of these false
documents were in Dr. Troian’s personnel
file as of April 2013.
Dr. Troian Has Suffered
Emotional and Physical Harm as a Result of
Caltech’s Retaliation Against Her.
188.
Due to Caltech’s escalating harassment
against her, in July 2012, Dr. Troian began
experiencing severe chest pains and
underwent several cardiac tests in September
2012.
189.
Her cardiologist concluded the pain was
caused by severe anxiety and sleep loss. The
pain became progressively more severe and in
November 2013 she underwent an endoscopy and
was diagnosed with severe esophageal and
stomach ulcers.
190.
Dr. Troian now requires daily multiple
prescription medications, but the condition
has not abated. Her doctor recently
indicated that she will likely need surgery
to alleviate the pain and progression of
this disease.
191.
Caltech’s four years of retaliation and
harassment have also caused Dr. Troian
severe anxiety, stress, sadness and
depression, sleep disturbances and other
physical ailments.
COUNT I – RETALIATION IN
VIOLATION OF CAL. LABOR CODE
§ 1102.5(b)
192.
Plaintiff incorporates and alleges
paragraphs 1 through 191 above as if
restated herein.
193.
Cal. Labor Code § 1102.5 prohibits an
employer from retaliating against an
employee for disclosing to a government or
law enforcement agency, or to a person with
authority over the employee or another
employee who has the authority to
investigate, discover, or correct the
violation or noncompliance, information the
employee reasonably believes discloses a
violation or noncompliance with a local,
state or federal statute, rule, or
regulation.
194.
Caltech violated Labor Code § 1102.5 by
retaliating against Dr. Troian for
disclosing what she reasonably believed to
be violations of federal export control
laws, including ITAR violations, by Dr. Amir
Gat to the FBI and to Caltech and JPL
officials.
195.
Dr. Troian reasonably believed that she was
disclosing Dr. Gat’s violations of
noncompliance with state or federal
statutes, rules, or regulations, when she
told Caltech and JPL officials and the FBI
about Dr. Gat’s apparent ITAR violations.
196.
Caltech had knowledge of Dr. Troian’s
internal disclosures regarding Dr. Gat
because she made them to Caltech officials.
Caltech clearly also had knowledge of Dr.
Troian’s disclosures to the FBI about Dr.
Gat. Drs. Gharib, Rosakis, and Stolper
repeatedly questioned, threatened, and
rebuked Dr. Troian about her communications
with the FBI regarding Dr. Gat, beginning
two weeks after her second conversation with
the FBI.
197.
Based on Dr. Troian’s disclosures of Dr.
Gat’s apparent illegal activity, Caltech
engaged in a campaign of retaliation against
Dr. Troian in an effort to drive her out of
Caltech and ruin her career. The retaliation
included, inter alia, placing multiple false
letters of discipline in her file;
threatening to bar her from hiring future
postdoctorate students; falsely accusing her
of research misconduct; refusing to follow
the Handbook’s procedure for investigating
research misconduct and instituting sham
proceedings that violated her rights as a
faculty member; issuing false findings of
wrongdoing against her and imposing
discipline against her; falsely accusing her
of misappropriating lab equipment; thwarting
her participation in campus committees,
events, and lectures; denying her over a
million dollars in grant funds; causing her
to waste significant time and money to fight
Caltech’s baseless allegations against her;
and generally intimidating her and
threatening her employment at Caltech.
198.
At all times relevant to this Complaint,
Caltech was Dr. Troian’s employer for the
purposes of Cal. Labor Code § 1102.5(b).
199.
At all times relevant to this Complaint,
Caltech employed each person who retaliated
against Dr. Troian, including but not
limited to Dr. Stolper, Dr. Gharib, Dr.
Rosakis, Dr. Fisher-Adams, Dr. Hunt, Ms.
Stratman, and Ms. Epallé.
200.
As a direct and proximate result of
Caltech’s conduct, Dr. Troian has suffered
special damages in the form of lost
earnings, benefits and/or out-of-pocket
expenses in an amount according to proof at
the time of trial. As a further direct and
proximate result of Caltech’s conduct, Dr.
Troian will suffer additional special
damages in the form of lost future earnings,
benefits, and/or other prospective damages
in the amount according to proof at the time
of trial.
201.
As a further direct and proximate result of
Caltech’s conduct, Dr. Troian has suffered
mental and emotional pain, distress and
discomfort, all to her detriment and damage
in amounts not fully ascertained but within
the jurisdiction of this court and subject
to proof at the time of trial.
202.
Caltech’s actions were intentional and were
taken in willful and wanton disregard of Dr.
Troian’s legal rights, and were taken
specifically to injure her for her protected
disclosure of apparent illegal activity at
Caltech, thereby warranting punitive damages
against Caltech.
See
full text of complaint