A student claims she was 'ignored' by her university after she alleged a senior lecturer of making sexual remarks and harassing her at work.
Rachael Hearn, a PHD student and sports rehabilitator at Manchester Metropolitan University, claims the member of staff made comments about her body that made her feel 'really uncomfortable.'
The 29-year-old alleges he asked her to remove her mask - despite it being university policy at the time - and reenacted a 'Nazi-style' march when she refused to do so.
READ MORE: Woman confronted Scout leader after realising he had sexually abused her
The student had been working at the Movement Unit in the Brooks building in Hulme on October 7 last year, when she claims the incident happened.
She immediately reported the lecturer to the university's HR department, and says she was told that her case had been sent to a HR adviser who would be in touch.
University policy states that a manager will arrange a formal meeting to hear the complaint 'without reasonable delay (normally within twenty working days of receiving the allegation).'
But Rachael said she was forced to send a follow-up email to the adviser, and wasn't given an official meeting until November 10 - over a month after the initial report.
During the meeting she claims she was informed by the HR adviser that no CCTV footage had been identified, and it would therefore be unlikely she'd be able to proceed with the complaint.
Rachael had assumed that a camera situated within the Movement Clinic would have captured the incident - but she later found out the CCTV did not belong to the university and couldn't be pulled.
She claims she was also informed that due to university policy, all other CCTV in the area - which could've helped the investigation, had been wiped by the time a second meeting was arranged.
Rachael alleges she was informed the lecturer in question would not be made aware of the allegation as it would be 'unfair' without sufficient evidence.
She is originally from the US and moved to Manchester in 2019 to study for her PHD at MMU. She has been working part-time at the Movement Unit since.
Rachael was the only person in the reception of the clinic on October 7, when she alleged the lecturer came in looking for advice about an injury.
"He introduced himself and I assumed he was probably staff but that wasn't confirmed until I googled him afterwards," she said, speaking to the M.E.N.
"I was getting a general sense of what he needed. During that conversation he physically stopped me and asked if I would take off my mask which I didn't want to and am not allowed to.
"I politely said no I would rather not. At the time it was university policy, it still is clinic policy and is mandated by my governing body. I also don't have a problem with it.
"I told him that and it went into this whole conversation about whether I had considered standing up to that or arguing that and I said no because it hadn’t really bothered me."
Rachael said she tried shortening her answers, hoping that he would leave. She claimed as she did so he started making comments about her appearance which made her feel 'really uncomfortable.'
"He said he could tell I was athletic and he could tell that I was a runner. When he first said it I thought it might have been linked to the condition he was coming to talk about," she said.
"But when I said no I used to be a swimmer he said 'oh yeah I can tell.' It's not the worst but it was just uncomfortable.
"As the conversation came to a close he went back to the whole covid conversation and continued to press that. I made it very clear that I wasn't interested in continuing the conversation.
"Then he did this Nazi-style march. He looked down, hunched his shoulders and did a little marching movement."
Disturbed by what she claimed had happened between them, Rachael said she found a 'random' business card to give him and made her excuses to leave.
After reporting the incident to the university's HR department an 'investigation meeting' took place, during which Rachael claimed she was told the camera in the clinic could not be checked.
"They told me I should prepare for the likely event I wouldn't be able to move forward with my complaint because there wasn't sufficient evidence to identify the individual," she said.
Rachael said following the meeting, her boss identified several cameras within the lobby of the building. She subsequently asked HR if these could be checked immediately.
"The HR adviser didn't respond to my email. Instead, in a final meeting he expressed learning about a 30-day CCTV policy they were unaware of," she said.
"I was told the CCTV gets wiped after 30 days. That is very publicly available on the university website and something everyone else seemed to know about. I would expect HR to know about this.
"By this point it was well over the 30 day time limit. He expressed his sympathies and regret for not knowing about this policy but he didn't really show any emotion. He didn't seem bothered.
"He told me that the department would use my case as a learning opportunity and that an inquiry into the state of the CCTV camera in the Movement Unit would take place."
Rachael claimed that following both her meetings with HR, she was informed that it would 'not be fair' to bring her accusation to the lecturer without any evidence.
"I thought that it was pretty s****y that he was never even spoken to. Nobody even asked him if he was in the clinic that day," she said.
"I don't know if there is an established written record of this because an accusation was never formally brought forward.
"It's not even that I need evidence to find him guilty, I now need evidence to bring an accusation. We can't even establish any kind of track record now."
Rachael said despite repeated emails, nobody ever came to look at the security camera at the Movement Clinic, and decided to escalate the matter.
"The next thing to do was try and pursue this is a student rather than employee. I met with my student union president and she sent an email to the head of estate and student services.
"An email was sent to the head of security to investigate. This is when I found out that the camera is not a university camera. That is something some people disagree with but we can’t get a resolution on it.
"I sent an email saying I didn’t feel great about that response. My main concern was that I didn’t feel safe. Nobody seemed to care to get the CCTV to work.
"If it happens again and god forbid it’s worse I have no confidence it’s going to go any other way. That was my primary concern: it’s not about getting anyone in trouble or fired."
Rachael claimed she was 'promised' someone was going to look into who owned the camera, but said she has not heard anything from the university since.
"I do think I've exhausted everything. My bosses are all in complete support so I feel support internally. They are angry and frustrated as well," she said.
"Policies and procedures are not being followed and I’m glad the only thing that happened was an annoyance for the day. Would this have been taken more seriously if this was a more serious offence?
"Why can’t I get some security? I hate the fact he's going to get away with it, but I also hate the fact that I don't feel safe."
A Manchester Metropolitan University spokesman said: "We are sorry that Miss Hearn feels that the investigation process has not been handled correctly.
"We continue to speak with Miss Hearn about her concerns and we will ensure that she can feel safe and supported when at the University."
