SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (KCAU) — A lawsuit claiming retaliation for reporting sexual discrimination between a Siouxland woman and the South Dakota Board of Regents (SDBOR) has been settled.

Semehar Ghebrekidan filed a lawsuit in February 2022 against two superiors and the SDBOR claiming she had been sexually discriminated against while working at the University of South Dakota and that she had been retaliated against for reporting it by her contract with the school not being renewed.

The no-fault settlement agreement, signed in February 2024, states that all parties in the lawsuit reached an agreement with no one admitting liability “after considering the substantial expense and uncertainty of future litigation, trials, and appeals, and with the desire to resolve all pending or potential disputes and administrative matters in their entirety.”

In the copy of the settlement, the defendants in the lawsuit would pay Ghebrekidan and her attorneys $100,000. Of that, Ghebrekidan received about $65,000 and another $10,000 in wages. The remaining amount went to her attorneys. Ghebrekidan would then waive the defendants from the lawsuit.

A little more than a week later, there was a joint motion by all parties in the case to dismiss the lawsuit in federal court, which was approved a day later. The case was then dismissed with prejudice on April 5.

The Lawsuit

In the original filing in February 2022, the lawsuit states that Ghebrekidan worked at the University of South Dakota as an International Student Advisor from June 2018 to June 2019. She claimed that she reported incidents of sexual harassment at the university’s International Office through the Title IX process, but her position was not renewed due to the reports. The lawsuit defendants denied that her contract was not renewed due to her reporting sexual harassment.

On one day in December 2018, a senior secretary of the USD international Office was having a conversation with an international student about modesty and told Ghebrekidan that “sometimes you wear those super short skirts and tights and I get the ‘Me Too’ movement and all, but sometimes you are just asking for it,” the lawsuit stated. Ghebrekidan took that to mean that she was somehow “asking” to be sexually assaulted because of the outfit she was wearing.

Thanks for signing up!

Watch for us in your inbox.

Subscribe Now

KCAU 9 Morning Update

The lawsuit states that the next day, Ghebrekidan overheard the secretary and her supervisor discussing the way Ghebrekidan behaved and dressed thinking Ghebrekidan had left early for the day. The secretary allegedly said Ghebrekidan had been “dressing like a whore,” and was “doing inappropriate things with students.” The secretary also believed that Ghebrekidan hugging an international student was culturally insensitive. The defendants admitted that the secretary and superior had a conversation about physical contact without knowing Ghebrekidan was in her office, denying all other allegations.

Ghebrekidan’s supervisor responded saying he would talk with her about her outfits and behavior. Ghebrekidan then opened the door to her office and the two then asked if she had heard the conversation.

The day after the conversation, Ghebrekidan reported the conversation to the Title IX Coordinator at USD who then recommended Ghebrekidan speak individually with her superior about the conversation she overheard, which she did.

During the conversation with her superior, Ghebrekidan was told that hugging was not culturally acceptable, the lawsuit stated, specifically commenting “that the rest of the employees were ‘midwestern and White’ and had a different view of what was culturally normal.” The suit also stated that Ghebrekidan asked her superior if she needed to disregard her culture and was told “she needs to make adjustments.” The defendants said that there was a conversation about Ghebrekidan’s physical contact but denied all other allegations.

Then in January 2019, Ghebrekidan requested her six-month evaluation but didn’t receive it until late February, being told that she only passed two of four categories and would be placed on a 60-day improvement plan. She allegedly asked both superiors for feedback on the improvement plan but received none.

Ghebrekidan then asked that her Title IX investigation become a formal complaint. The investigation was closed in April after there was found to be a lack of substantial evidence. The defendants claim that the investigation determined there was “no reasonable basis for believing she had been subject to retaliation or harassment. She did not appeal this determination.”

About a week later, Ghebrekidan’s supervisor told her she had made progress on her improvement plan. The defendants didn’t deny the allegations in their filed answer. About another three weeks later, Ghebrekidan was told she was being placed on administrative leave and her contract would not be extended. When she asked why, the head of the department said she hadn’t made any progress in her 60-day improvement plan. The defendants said that her contract would not be renewed due to an inadequate performance.

“The delay in conducting Semehar’s six-month evaluation, placing Semehar on a 60-day improvement plan, placing Semehar on administrative leave, and refusing to renew Semehar’s contract were all done in retaliation for Semehar pursuing an investigation under Title IX,” the lawsuit stated.

The joint answer to the lawsuit by the defendants denied any action based on improper motives and that Ghebrekidan “failed to properly mitigate her damages.” It also claimed that Title IX was not applicable due to the USD International Office not receiving federal educational funding. It also said her superiors were not proper parties to the Title IX claims nor a specific claim of equal protection.

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to SiouxlandProud | Sioux City, IA | News, Weather, and Sports.