Ringling College made deals with a top administrator before his firing, lawsuit says

Christopher Shaffer, an ousted dean at Ringling College of Art and Design, has filed a lawsuit against his former employer. The suit revealed new details about his termination last September, after a series of students and alumni complained about his behavior.

Shaffer, who oversaw campus housing as the associate dean of students for Residence Life, found himself in the spotlight last year. Ringling graduate Megan Ruiz urged students to avoid Shaffer in a June 22 Twitter post, joining a national discussion about “dangerous men in art schools.”

The post inspired dozens of people — including past and current students — to contact Ruiz and the college with their own concerns about Shaffer. In a past interview, Ruiz said she had painful memories from working under Shaffer as a resident assistant, or RA.

“There were a few red flags in the beginning,” Ruiz said. “One of them, him specifically calling me out in training, taking me into his personal car and then calling a transgender student an ‘abomination’ while there’s just the two of us.”

Shaffer filed a defamation lawsuit against Ruiz last August, calling her allegations “false and malicious.” The college responded by firing Shaffer and denouncing his lawsuit about one month later.

But that was never the original plan, according to Shaffer’s latest filing in Sarasota County. In a new lawsuit against Ringling College and its president, Larry Thompson, the former dean said his firing was a ploy to ease public outcry and direct the attention away from Ringling.

Chelsea Garner-Ferris, an editorial manager for the college, offered a prepared statement from Ringling on Monday afternoon.

“As a practice, the College does not comment on pending legal matters,” her email states. “Nevertheless, we find these actions further illustrate behavior that is contrary to our values. The College intends to defend itself in the courts.”

THE DEAL

According to his lawsuit against Ringling College, Shaffer agreed to remain quiet and let the allegations “blow over.”

“The promise was simple,” Shaffer said in his lawsuit against the college. “If plaintiff remained silent, let Ringling and Dr. Thompson ‘handle’ the situation, then, in exchange, plaintiff could remain employed at Ringling.”

“Dr. Thompson also told plaintiff that he knew the allegations were untrue, that they ‘could have happened to any of us,’ and that, in time and with plaintiff’s silence, the whole situation would just ‘blow over,’ the suit continues.

Days later, Ringling College announced an investigation. “These allegations do not reflect actions that conform to our core values or our expectations,” the public announcement said.

“Knowing he did no wrong, plaintiff welcomed an investigation as an opportunity to clear his name,” the lawsuit reads. “However, in the meantime, he was extremely concerned that his professional reputation was being destroyed without any opportunity to respond, any response from Ringling, and/or any public word to contrast Ms. Ruiz and the Twitter mob’s baseless allegations.”

Shaffer reportedly told school officials he was considering filing a criminal or civil complaint to combat the allegations against him. According to his lawsuit, the vice president of human resources, Christine Carnegie, told Shaffer he “was free to pursue civil action,” though a lawsuit “may be construed as interfering with the ongoing investigation.”

Shaffer said he then reaffirmed the deal with Ringling’s president. In his lawsuit, Shaffer said he promised to avoid taking action against Ruiz until the investigation concluded, and to “not publicly defend his personal and/or professional reputation.”

In turn, the lawsuit continues, Thompson agreed to not terminate Shaffer’s at-will employment, and to let Shaffer remain in his position, “pending a finding in the internal investigation that Ms. Ruiz and the Twitter mob’s allegations were false.”

“As such, on June 30, 2020, the bargain was struck,” his lawsuit says.

THE FIRST LAWSUIT

In the weeks that followed, the Bradenton Herald repeatedly contacted Raelyn Lincoln, the special assistant to Ringling’s president. The newspaper requested more information and a phone interview with Shaffer.

Citing the “ongoing nature” of the allegations, Lincoln told the Bradenton Herald that Ringling would not make Shaffer available for comment in July. And according to the lawsuit, Lincoln told Shaffer the news story would “go away” if Ringling “simply failed to answer.”

The Bradenton Herald published an article on July 20, detailing the accusations made by Ruiz and others in the Ringling community. Another graduate said she was sexually assaulted by a fellow student and that Shaffer asked her “invasive and blaming questions.”

A mother also described the former dean as “demeaning” and “inappropriate.”

Less than two weeks later, Shaffer reportedly met with Jim Grove, the associate director of human resources, along with Darren Mathews, the director of HR.

Discussing the allegations, they said “none of the themes were actionable offenses’‘ and that Shaffer would not be fired. In a follow-up meeting the next day, Mathews also verified that Ringling finished its investigation, according to the recent lawsuit.

Shaffer felt he honored the deal with college officials. Believing the investigation to be over, it was time to break months of silence and file a lawsuit against Ruiz, “the only opportunity to have a voice,” Shaffer said in the complaint.

“Are you sure that’s the best idea — that would likely cause another uprising,” the lawsuit states, quoting the HR director.

In response, Shaffer said he would “pause or stop the filing” if Ringling paid the retainer for his attorney. With no response from college officials, Shaffer filed the lawsuit against Ruiz, his most vocal accuser, on Aug. 3.

That upset Thompson, the college president, who offered Shaffer yet another deal, according to his latest complaint.

THE TERMINATION

Shaffer met with the human resources leadership on Aug. 26, when he received an official letter on the allegations and Ringling’s findings.

Along with a “reassignment of duties,” it said Shaffer was required to attend training for his communication skills, and to receive coaching on “diversity sensitivity.”

“This letter is notice that further use of language that is insensitive to an individual’s identity, experiences or situation cannot be tolerated,” the document continues.

“Mr. Mathews confirmed that plaintiff did not violate federal law, did not threaten the employment status of any RA, did not abuse his power, and/or did not take any discriminatory actions,” Shaffer said in his lawsuit against the college.

As the meeting came to an end, Shaffer informed the group about his lawsuit against Ruiz and a related article in the Bradenton Herald, which came out the same day as their meeting. According to the complaint, Shaffer was then “summoned to Dr. Thompson’s office” for a meeting with Ringling’s president.

“Ms. Carnegie and Dr. Thompson arrived at the meeting visibly angry and upset,” the lawsuit states.

“At the start of the meeting, Dr. Thompson stated that the investigation had concluded, and he planned to make plaintiff an offer,” the suit continues. “However, because plaintiff had filed a civil suit against Ms. Ruiz ‘things changed’ and he needed to ‘give it some thought’ and reschedule.”

Shaffer and Thompson again met on Aug. 27, when the college president made an offer to Shaffer: He could either resign as the associate dean and take a severance offer, or he could take a different position at Ringling, the new lawsuit states.

The lawsuit included a copy of the severance agreement, which afforded Shaffer $75,197, an amount equal to 10 months of salary, along with tuition for Shaffer’s son. The agreement would also entitle Shaffer to a “letter of neutral reference” from the college president.

In turn, Shaffer would dismiss the lawsuit against Ruiz and agree to never make “negative statements” about the college.

Shaffer declined the offer and chose to take a new position at Ringling, though the details were unclear and the deal rapidly fell apart, his lawsuit continues.

Within hours of the Aug. 26 meeting between Shaffer and Thompson, Lincoln reached out to the Bradenton Herald with a comment about Ringling’s investigation.

“The inquiry that began in summer 2020 was absolutely not concluded in July, and is, in fact, still ongoing,” Lincoln said.

The comment prompted Shaffer to file a grievance against both Lincoln and Thompson. Citing meetings with HR staff in July and August, along with the Aug. 25 letter on their findings, Shaffer said any statements about an “ongoing” investigation were false.

“With even more irony,” the lawsuit states, Thompson and Lincoln reviewed the grievance levied against them, finding that it was not actionable. They reportedly told Shaffer that “Lincoln’s statement to the Bradenton Herald was truthful.”

The lawsuit says Shaffer tried to appeal their finding but was terminated days later. In a public statement on Sep. 10, the college president said Shaffer filed a lawsuit against Ruiz, a college alumna, while the investigation was still ongoing.

In his statement, Thompson said the college was unaware of Shaffer’s lawsuit until late August, and that “Shaffer’s lawsuit against a former student creates the type of chilling effect” that Ringling hoped to prevent.

The college president sent a termination letter to Shaffer on the same day, noting that Ringling learned of the lawsuit against Ruiz through a Bradenton Herald article:

“Although U.S. law generally gives everyone the freedom to file a lawsuit, Ringling staff also agree to govern themselves by the Ringling College policies that prohibit retaliation against those filing complaints or raising concerns and from interfering with an ongoing investigation.”

Shaffer refuted that stance in the new lawsuit filed against Ringling College and Thompson. He argued that college officials were aware of his plan to file a lawsuit, and that Thompson’s concerns were disingenuous.

By firing Shaffer and denouncing the lawsuit against Ruiz, the college leaders appeared to be “white knights taking the moral high road,” while any negative attention was directed at Shaffer, his new lawsuit claims.

“Plaintiff was no longer useful because he could not be used as a shield against Ms. Ruiz and the mob,” Shaffer said in his lawsuit. “Instead, by filing his civil action against Ms. Ruiz — which he was freely permitted to do under Florida law and the terms of the June 30, 2020 bargain — plaintiff had become a burden to Ringling and Dr. Thompson.”

THE FUTURE

Meanwhile, as Shaffer wages a new lawsuit against Ringling College, his original suit against Ruiz is still ongoing.

Her supporters — who believe the allegations against Shaffer and the notion that he retaliated against his accuser — have donated more than $70,000 to help with Ruiz’s legal expenses. In an interview on Monday morning, Ruiz said she already owed more than $22,000 on top of the money raised.

The new lawsuit against Ringling, she said, offered valuable insight on what the college knew and how it handled the allegations against its dean. She pointed to the “bargain” that pushed Shaffer to remain silent and let things “blow over.”

She also questioned the assertion that Ringling had no knowledge of the original lawsuit before it was filed, and whether it was appropriate for Shaffer to be making deals with college leadership while he was facing serious allegations.

“Shaffer clearly can’t take accountability for any of his own actions. He’s trying to blame me, trying to blame Ringling — trying to blame anyone but himself for all of the damage that he caused to students and alumni,” Ruiz said.

This story was originally published February 9, 2021 at 5:00 AM.