University of Michigan student files whistleblower's lawsuit citing lab safety violations
A University of Michigan alumnus is taking the university to court, alleging a former professor terminated his graduate research assistantship four days after he reported the professor dumped chemicals down a sink in a neutron science lab.
U-M graduate Robert McGee is suing the U-M Board of Regents under the state Whistleblowers' Protection Act for unspecified damages. The jury trial begins Monday before Judge Archie Brown in Washtenaw County Circuit Court.
U-M denied in court documents that McGee was fired for reporting the professor's alleged safety violations.
McGee worked under the supervision of Michael Hartman, an assistant professor of nuclear engineering and radiological sciences in the College of Engineering. According to the lawsuit, Hartman supervised McGee in his position as a graduate student research assistant.
The lawsuit claims McGee constructed Hartman's neutron science laboratory from 2004 to 2008, including preparing two neutron generators for licensing by the state.
McGee told two professors about Hartman's "cavalier attitude" toward safety of radioactive sources in the neutron science lab in late 2007, the suits states. McGee alleges in the suit that Hartman told him he worked with chemicals on nights and weekends to avoid personnel from U-M's Occupational Safety and Environmental Health.
A few months later, Hartman asked McGee to accompany him to another professor's lab without a survey meter to detect radiation, even though the lab contained radioactive Cesium 137 source, the lawsuit states. Hartman told McGee he was unsure whether the source of Cesium, which is highly radioactive, was active and McGee quickly left the lab, the suit states.
McGee said in the lawsuit he was worried he'd been exposed to radiation and reported Hartman to U-M's Radiation Safety Services via e-mail on Feb. 16, 2008. He also reported to U-M's OSEH that he saw Hartman dumping chemicals down a sink in a lab he thought was connected to a storm drain.
McGee's lawsuit claims the professor had him fired in retaliation via e-mail four days later, though the e-mail said McGee would be paid through the end of the term. According to the lawsuit, McGee was also denied employment with another professor, which ended all hope of continuing research for a future PhD thesis and research in the neutron lab.
In its answer to the suit, U-M's Office of General Counsel asked for a dismissal, which was denied. U-M attorney David Masson denied in court files that Hartman terminated McGee for reporting violations related to the management of hazardous or radioactive materials.
Masson acknowledged an e-mail was sent from McGee to report Hartman to Radiation Safety Services, and Hartman e-mailed McGee on Feb. 20 to terminate his position.
Representatives from U-M's Office of General Counsel and McGee's attorney were not available for comment Thursday. Hartman couldn't immediately be reached for comment.
Lauren Squires, grievance chair for the Graduate Employees Organization - the union representing graduate student instructors and staff assistants - said graduate student research assistants aren't part of the collective bargaining unit, but their minimum salaries are close to what a GEO member would receive.
In 2009, GSRAs with 10-hour a week appointments receive $4,156 for four-months of work, according to U-M's Academic Human Resources office. The assistantships for 10-hours a week or more also come with a 100 percent tuition waiver, according to the Web site.
Juliana Keeping covers higher education for AnnArbor.com. Reach her at julianakeeping@annarbor.com or 734-623-2528. Follow Juliana Keeping on Twitter
Comments
aanative
Sat, Nov 21, 2009 : 10:26 p.m.
@alumnus, No I didn't miss that point. That's exactly what I was trying to say. His precandidate project was not his thesis project. Nobody's is. It's typical to determine a thesis topic after you become a candidate, which McGee never accomplished. Candidacy is achieved after passing specific courses and taking a written exam. My post was in response to the person that said "building a neutron lab is worthy of a PhD".
trespass
Wed, Nov 18, 2009 : 12:43 p.m.
@aanative You missed the point that this was not McGee's thesis project. This is just what he was asked to do as a GSRA while he was a pre-candidate. He expected that he would develop a thesis project that used the new facility but building the lab was never his research.
aanative
Mon, Nov 16, 2009 : 11:44 a.m.
@maznblu, In response your post: 1) Yes, I am posting on this forum in response to people's threads. You are doing the same thing. That is what a comment board is for. 2) My post was pretty non-emotional compared to the other posts around here. Did you perceive it as an "attack" because I corrected some of the facts you stated? I even said you may be right about some things. If you took my post as an attack, beware - you've got a lot worse coming from other people. 3) What does the fact that you're a mom have to do with anything? 4) I NEVER implied that McGee's status as a good/bad/poor/rich/whatever student had anything to do with whether his allegations should be taken seriously. If you thought that, you seriously need a lesson in logic. To the other person wondering about pre-candidate projects, there are a variety of projects available. Students are placed where they fit best. It is obvious that McGee had skills and interest in building the neutron lab so he was placed there. However, all students are expected to spend approximately the samea amount of time on research and on classes. If he had a problem finishing his deadlines and thought they were unreasonable, he should have contacted his advisor, department chair, and graduate coordinator to discuss the situation. Also, getting a PhD is much more than simply completing a large task. It requires a significant, unique, innovative contribution to research. While building a neutron lab certainly is a large task, it has been done many times in the past by other people and therefore is not worthy of a PhD. In essence, any project with an instruction guide is not worthy of a PhD.
crintigger
Sat, Nov 14, 2009 : 4:53 p.m.
aanative, I appreciate your pride in UM, however, you are fallaciously using "the availability heuristic." You assume that because you only know of a few isolated incidents that is all of the incidents that exist. Phil Green (plaintiff's attorney) has taken tens of millions of dollars in judgments from the university in the past 20 years for the few incidents that you believe have occurred. Why don't you send off a FOIA and request a list of the names of plaintiffs against UM in the past 20 years and the causes of action, the verdicts and judgments. I think once you receive that information, you will have the data to judge whether or not this is a few incidents. This FOIA would of course not cover all those wronged who did not sue.
trespass
Sat, Nov 14, 2009 : 4:18 p.m.
@aanative. I would like to challenge you to compare whatever project you have been given as a PhD pre-candidate to the project that they assigned to Bob McGee. This supposedly below average student was recruited by the former Department Chair and asked to design, construct and get licensed the Neutron Beam Laboratory. Bob started with a bare 60 x 60 foot space. He had to design a layout, design sheilding, design safety systems, meet all NRC regulations, meet building codes, OSHA and Fire Dept requirements, paint, build walls, install electrical and plumbing systems, coordinate with the instrument vendor, radiation safety, enviornmental health, skilled trades, all on a 25% graduate student research assistant appointment (10 hours a week)and take classes. Don't you think that might interfere with your studying for classes? Wouldn't you rather take an occaisional incomplete rather than get a bad grade if you were so pre-occupied by this massive project that you hadn't had enough time to study. Please describe the project you have done as a pre-candidate and how it compares to Bob's. I bet your project had more to do with your thesis project than Bob's did. He was being exploited and it interfered with his studies.
trespass
Sat, Nov 14, 2009 : 10:13 a.m.
When Bob McGee asked Dr. Hartman if he had a key to the security gate, he called the gate a "joke" and promptly pulled the anchor bolt out of the wall and entered the area of the irradiator. Security is an important part of the licensing of a radiation facility and of safety for both individuals and the general public. If it was a "joke" Dr. Hartman should have reported it to radiation safety rather than making fun of it. Dr. Hartman said that he was authorized to be in the facility to replace the security gate but when he was asked why he went down a long hallway and into the room with the Cs-137 source he said it was primarily out of "general curiosity". He obviously had a near total disregard for NRC rules, which is unforgivable for a professor in the Nuclear Engineering and Radiologic Sciences Laboratory. He is the one that should be facing disciplinary action.
maznblu
Fri, Nov 13, 2009 : 3:58 p.m.
Wow aanative, you seem to be rather passionate about this case, you have made comments on both my post and others'? hmmm, makes one wonder, especially to attack a mom simply giving her opinion in an open forum. Odd. Well, in response, let's assume your stance is correct, this was a "floundering student" who could not tie his shoes. However, he does have the common sense to observe several safety violations and then contacts the appropriate authorites. Are his accusations any less legitimate based on the fact that he is a said "floundering student"? I should pray and hope not. An elite student at the top of the class alleging safety complaints should get no more special treatment that one at the bottom, assuming he was, which it seems you are mistaken in citing. Next it will be an out of state student vs. an in-state, a freshman vs. a senior, a student with an extensive U-M family history complaining vs. one who secretly is a Spartan fan? Please. A complaint is not any less significant based on an individual's GPA or past academic performance and to hint otherwise is an insult to the 90% of us who are not in the top elite. Let's make it nice and simple for you: floundering student makes safety violation, days later is fired. Simply stated, that is injustice at its finest.
aanative
Fri, Nov 13, 2009 : 2:08 p.m.
@maznblu, Yes, this court case is about whether a student was fired due to "whistleblowing". However, you have incorrectly interpreted some of the facts. This student was apparently NOT a good student. The defense has said that he was below average and had a long history of missed deadlines and incomplete classes. The defense says that the decision to fire the student was made WELL before the so-called whistle was blown. This case has not yet been decided. Until we know the verdict, we don't know whether this student was fired due to incompetence or due to alleging safety violations (which may or may not have occurred). You are right that if it was the latter, that is indeed very illegal and an injustice. However, I think UM has a lot of strong evidence to prove that they legally fired this student and that it was not related to any of the student's allegations (again, which may not even have been true).
maznblu
Fri, Nov 13, 2009 : 12:20 p.m.
As a mom of small children I am deeply discouraged by this. It seems the message being conveyed by the defense is if you make a complaint regarding something as significant as safety you should be afraid and reconsider doing this in the future. This student it seems had good grades and performances yet still is being scrutinized and attacked for doing the right thing. I can't even imagine what the U would do if an average student such as myself had made the complaint. Well, I will still encourage my children to do the right thing regardless of the cost, embarassment, fear and ridicule they may endure.
aanative
Thu, Nov 12, 2009 : 4:05 p.m.
@crintigger, I realize that to you my comments may sound naive. Thank you for your concern that my career will soon be destroyed. However, the majority of students in my department including myself have benefited from the faculty of the #1 research institution in nuclear engineering as ranked by other universities. Therefore I think I'll take my chances here. Your comments sound sincere but a tad bit cynical to me. You cite a few isolated incidents out of the tens of thousands of faculty and students and suddenly it's a trend? Of course there are isolated incidents of infractions. But I don't think this is one of them. McGee apparently was a floundering student who had dropped out of several classes due to inability to do the work and meet deadlines. Hartman's claim of wanting him fired well before this incident are probably true. That is what this trial is about. I would also like to note that any place where radioactive materials are stored are clearly going to be protected (padlocked) to prevent general access. So when you say Hartman "circumvented" a padlock, of course he did. He had the right to do so. I don't know the details of the radioactive source in question but typically these things are very shielded and there's no easy way to get significant exposure. McGee would have known this and it makes no sense why he would "flee the room". McGee's account sounds suspiciously exaggerated to me.
crintigger
Thu, Nov 12, 2009 : 1:01 p.m.
There is no question but that the General Counsel (GC) and other attorneys in the GC's office are greatly responsible for the corruption at UM. Instead of telling faculty and administration to obey the law, the GC covers up wrong-doing, permits intimidation and retaliation against those reporting wrong-doing, and is complicit in the destruction of the careers of those who report. The GC is the last person/office who could "stop the accident." Instead, they step on the accelerator. They and one corrupt administration after another have turned UM into the MICHIGAN MAFIA.
Justiceforsome
Thu, Nov 12, 2009 : 12:23 p.m.
Regents are elected by voters. Although it may not be spelled out when UM regents are sworn in, UM must obey the law. Accepting state and federal grant money requires that the institution follow DEQ and EPA restrictions. An interesting NIH grant may be the long-term fertility and health risks to UM General Counsel employees of daily ingestion of radioactive liquids.
crintigger
Thu, Nov 12, 2009 : 2:26 a.m.
I am happy the news is looking into what UM spent in attorney fees, costs of litigation, and damages to each of the plaintiffs in the last year. I hope you continue to go back 20 years to the time of Marianne Zorza's case (which was all over the front page of the Sunday Detroit News around June 1990). Under the Duderstat Presidency the corruption really bubble over and has continued for 20 years. Also, please find out whether the alleged perpetrator in each case is still employed at UM. That's particularly interesting if UM paid out money to the person injured. How many people who have been sued or caused the university to be sued are still at UM. Most, I'll bet, because the UM Administration doesn't care about wrongdoing.
crintigger
Thu, Nov 12, 2009 : 2:19 a.m.
Oops...I really messed up the names in that previous submission. Here goes again... After blowing the whistle, McGee was told his graduate funding would end. You all probably figured that out.
Juliana Keeping
Wed, Nov 11, 2009 : 2:10 p.m.
crintigger, Funny you raise this point! I recently filed a FOI asking for similar information for the the past year. I'm working with the University of Michigan to get the information I need for a story on the cost of lawsuits. Thanks for commenting-Juliana
crintigger
Wed, Nov 11, 2009 : 1:58 p.m.
The public should demand a complete list of all monies spent by UM in the past 20 years to defend faculty and administration and staff and a list of the verdicts and judgments (awards). If you added up all these monies, my bet it would come to 100 million dollars.
crintigger
Wed, Nov 11, 2009 : 1:44 p.m.
Robert McGee testified under oath in the last 2 days that Michael Hartman circumvented a padlocked gate to radioactive materials by removing a concrete block with the hinge attached. Thereafter he entered and told McGee to come with him. Upon entering he asked McGee if everything was turned off and safe, at which point McGee said he didn't have any idea and fled the room and reported the breach to the appropriate authorities on campus. Apparently, your belief that this would be taken seriously is seriously in doubt, because the net result was that shortly thereafter Hartman was told his funding for graduate school would end. You seem very sincere. However, you are very naive. The University of Michigan has an at least 2 decade history of covering up serious wrong-doing by their faculty. Look who is still in the psychology department -- Marion Perlmutter -- who was unanimously found guilt of FRAUD by a jury, unanimously upheld by the State of Michigan Court of Appeals. Corruption abounds at UM, you are living in a fantasy world, believing that because faculty SHOULD be searching for truth, they are therefore honest. That is a logical fallacy. Until the public starts uprising against the multi-million dollar expenditures of the UM administration in legal bills to defend wrong-doing -- even while the state is in dire financial condition -- this will not stop. This is tax payer dollars going to defend corrupt faculty and administration and there is no oversight. The Regents don't care. They have direct access at all the payouts and expenditures and can see the money thrown down the drain, while tuition and fees rise to cover this malfeasance and THE REGENTS DON'T CARE. If the Regents don't care, who is it that you think will take this misconduct seriously? YOU??? Just watch your back and get out of there as soon as possible. You could be the next young scientist to stumble upon wrong-doing and naively report it and have your career destroyed.
aanative
Tue, Nov 10, 2009 : 4:02 p.m.
crintigger, I am not sure if you were posting directly in response to my comment. I did not say that no violation occurred. I only gave my opinion that I find the student's allegations difficult to believe from my position of having been in the department for so long. I said that if a violation did occur, it will be taken seriously.
crintigger
Tue, Nov 10, 2009 : 3:10 p.m.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The fact that YOU do not know of and have evidence of violations does not imply that violations do not occur. THINK!
aanative
Mon, Nov 9, 2009 : 4:47 p.m.
I have been a student in the U-M Nuclear Engineering Department for several years. I do not know the student or professor involved in this case personally other than (a) The professor is relatively new to our department and has a very good reputation and (b) The student has been in my department for longer than it typically takes to earn a degree. I do not know if the student has been working full-time towards his degree however. Regardless, I would like to comment that everyone in our department takes safety very seriously. Please be assured that if any safety violations are discovered in this investigation, they will be taken extremely seriously. I personally feel very safe in my department and believe that no professor would intentionally break guidelines in such a blatant manner as this student alleges.
InsideTheHall
Sun, Nov 8, 2009 : 9:13 a.m.
The U is in good hands with Bulldog Masson on the case.
rrt911
Fri, Nov 6, 2009 : 2:04 p.m.
Don't kid yourself about the practices at the U of M. After being sexually harassed and ONLY asking for my job back, the supervisor of respiratory therapy at Mott, a known harasser, still had his job and probably stilll harassing, heck he's living with one therapist he supervises.
MjC
Fri, Nov 6, 2009 : 11:12 a.m.
Thanks Walrus - I should have thought the grad student's situation over a bit more. And thanks to Charlie, too. We learn a lot from blogging articles.
wacky_walrus
Fri, Nov 6, 2009 : 10:39 a.m.
@MjC McGee wasn't dismissed from his graduate program, just fired from his GSRA position, which waives tuition. As the article states, he was also denied employment with another professor. Many students are unable to continue their graduate studies if they are unable to secure a tuition waiver, which exist only in a limited quantity in each department and can be hard to come by.
Charley Sullivan
Fri, Nov 6, 2009 : 10:14 a.m.
Basic usage: Alumni is always plural; there is no such thing as "an alumni." Singular forms are: alumnus (male or not specified), alumna (female). The form alumnae is used for a group of female (only) graduates. (Yes, sexism in language, but it is what it is). So this story should have started out: A University of Michigan alumnus.
MjC
Fri, Nov 6, 2009 : 8:05 a.m.
There must be more to this story. I can't imagine a graduate program dismissing a student without a lengthy performance evaluation and grievance procedure.
anonamoose
Fri, Nov 6, 2009 : 7:41 a.m.
Perhaps there should be a Drains to River sticker on all labs sinks...