University of Michigan OIE Report: Credibility Findings Against Duaa Altaee Contradict “Insufficient Evidence” Conclusion

This record examines a University of Michigan Office for Institutional Equity (OIE)—the University’s Title IX office—investigation involving research coordinator Duaa Altaee, the complainant, focusing on how the report’s stated conclusion of “insufficient evidence” compares to its underlying credibility findings and evidentiary analysis.

A University of Michigan investigation concluded there was “insufficient evidence.”

Yet the University’s own record reflects explicit findings that Duaa Altaee “flat out lied”—findings made after a year-long investigation, later introduced for the first time in formal dismissal proceedings against Dr. Bradley Foerster, and relying in part on evidence that does not hold up under closer examination while failing to address multiple items of evidence submitted by Duaa Altaee.

University of Michigan Sexual Harassment Complaint Involving NIH-Affiliated Research Coordinator Duaa Altaee

Timeline of Key Events

• October 23, 2014 — Email documents inquiry by Dr. Robert Welsh regarding office key
• April 2015 — Complaint filed by Duaa Altaee
• ~April 2016 — OIE completes investigation (~1 year)
• Post-termination of Altaee — Report not provided to Altaee
• November 2018 — OIE report introduced for the first time in formal dismissal proceedings against Dr. Bradley Foerster by the Medical Dean’s outside attorney, Dan Tukel

Overview

This record documents a sexual harassment complaint involving Duaa Altaee, a research coordinator associated with an underlying NIH-funded research project at the University of Michigan. The materials presented include formal complaints, correspondence, and the University’s investigative response through the Office for Institutional Equity (OIE).

The underlying NIH-funded project was led by two Co-Principal Investigators: Dr. Robert Welsh, PhD, and Dr. Bradley Foerster, MD, PhD. Altaee’s role was within this research environment.

These materials establish a structured account of the complaint and illustrate how the University evaluated—and ultimately declined to substantiate—the allegations under its policy framework.

This record also provides important context regarding how institutional findings and credibility determinations were developed and documented within a formal investigative framework.

Background and Complaint

The complaint arises from Duaa Altaee’s role within an NIH-funded research environment at the University of Michigan. The record reflects that Altaee reported multiple incidents involving alleged boundary violations, workplace conduct concerns, and a car ride that serves as a central factual component of the case.

Altaee’s complaint was formally submitted in April 2015. The OIE investigation extended for approximately one year before reaching a final determination.

Altaee’s account includes specific descriptions of interactions that Altaee characterized as inappropriate and unwelcome. These allegations were formally submitted and investigated by the University.

Institutional Response

The OIE report documents interviews, competing accounts, and selected supporting materials gathered during the investigation. The report ultimately concludes that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate a violation of University policy following an extended investigative period.

However, the University record—including statements made by the Medical Dean’s outside attorney, Dan Tukel, during formal dismissal proceedings against Dr. Bradley Foerster—reflects that the report and its attachments go beyond a neutral non-substantiation finding. In that record, OIE expressly characterized aspects of Altaee’s account as false, including statements that Altaee had “flat out lied.”

The same record further reflects that OIE identified multiple instances in which Altaee was described as having misrepresented or fabricated facts.

These are not neutral evidentiary conclusions—they are affirmative credibility determinations.

Weather Evidence and Credibility Assessment

One basis cited in the report’s “Counter Evidence” is the assertion that Altaee’s description of the day as “beautiful” reflects a willingness to misrepresent facts. See Exhibit 1 (OIE Report, pp. 39–40).

That conclusion relies on a forecast-based characterization of storm conditions, rather than a time-specific analysis of the actual observed weather on the date in question.

The underlying weather record shows that conditions in Ann Arbor remained fair and partly cloudy through approximately 6:53 PM, with temperatures in the 80s and 90s. Thunderstorm activity developed later in the evening. See Exhibit 2.

The reported car ride occurred after the workday, placing it within the timeframe during which conditions were still documented as fair. In that context, Altaee’s description of the day as “beautiful” is fully consistent with the observed conditions at the time.

The report does not reconcile this timing with the weather data it cites. Instead, it relies on a retrospective and generalized weather narrative that does not reflect the conditions during the relevant timeframe.

As a result, a credibility determination grounded in this weather analysis is not supported when evaluated against the actual, time-specific record.

Office Access and Corroborating Documentation

The report addresses allegations relating to access to Altaee’s office but ultimately does not substantiate any policy violation in connection with this issue.

Independent contemporaneous documentation, however, confirms a key factual component of Altaee’s account. In an October 23, 2014 email, a departmental administrative staff member states that Dr. Robert Welsh asked about obtaining a key to the office and was referred onward. See Exhibit 3.

This communication establishes that Dr. Robert Welsh sought to obtain a key to Altaee’s office through departmental channels, providing contemporaneous third-party corroboration of Altaee’s account.

The OIE report discusses the office access issue but does not include or analyze this documentation, leaving the issue presented without reference to available corroborating evidence.

Access to the Report and Subsequent Disclosure

Altaee was not provided a copy of the OIE report prior to Altaee’s termination and did not receive the report at the time the University concluded its investigation.

The report later appeared within the University record in November 2018, when it was introduced for the first time in formal dismissal proceedings against Dr. Bradley Foerster by the Medical Dean’s outside attorney, Dan Tukel.

The documentation was presented in that proceeding without authorization from Altaee.

This sequence reflects that the report—while central to the University’s conclusions—was not contemporaneously provided to Altaee and instead surfaced later in a separate procedural context.

Documentation Summary

The OIE report presents the conclusion that there was “insufficient evidence” to substantiate the allegations. Yet the University’s own record reflects that the analysis did not end there. It includes explicit determinations that Duaa Altaee misrepresented or fabricated facts—findings that go well beyond a neutral evidentiary assessment.

At least one basis for those determinations—the weather analysis—is not supported when evaluated against the actual, time-specific weather record. The credibility inference relies on a generalized or forecast-based characterization that does not align with the documented conditions at the time of the events.

At the same time, independent contemporaneous documentation exists that corroborates elements of Altaee’s account but is not reflected in the report’s analysis.

The record further reflects that multiple items of evidence submitted by Duaa Altaee were neither included in nor addressed within the OIE report.

In addition, the report does not address or reference multiple items of evidence submitted by Altaee, leaving the extent to which those materials were considered unclear on the face of the record.

Related correspondence from University counsel provides additional context regarding the University’s stated understanding of events and its handling of the matter. See related documentation:
https://www.hail2thevictims.com/2026/03/umich-sexual-harassment-complaint-response-duaa-altaee-2017.html

Taken together, the record reflects a determination framed as “insufficient evidence,” while simultaneously advancing affirmative findings of fabrication based on incomplete and, in at least one instance, unsupported analysis—without incorporating the full evidentiary record.

The result is not a fully reconciled evidentiary record, but a selective one.

Exhibits

The following exhibits correspond to and support the analysis presented above.

Exhibit 1 — OIE Report (Weather Analysis and Credibility Findings, pp. 39–40)

Section of the OIE report relied upon in assessing Altaee’s credibility based on weather characterization. Includes the “Counter Evidence” discussion and related credibility findings.

Exhibit 1: OIE report excerpts reflecting weather-based reasoning and associated credibility determinations.

Exhibit 2 — Historical Weather Report (Actual Conditions)

Time-specific weather data for the date of the reported car ride. Shows fair and partly cloudy conditions through approximately 6:53 PM and provides direct comparison to the OIE report’s weather characterization.

Exhibit 2: Historical weather data showing actual observed conditions during the relevant timeframe.

Exhibit 3 — Email (October 23, 2014 – Office Key Inquiry)

Departmental email confirming that Dr. Robert Welsh sought to obtain a key to Altaee’s office. Independent contemporaneous documentation referenced in the analysis above.

Exhibit 3: Email confirming that Dr. Robert Welsh sought to obtain a key to Altaee’s office.

Exhibit 4 — OIE Report (Final Determination – “Insufficient Evidence,” p. 31)

Summary section of the OIE report reflecting the formal conclusion of the investigation. Establishes the contrast between the stated final determination and the report’s affirmative credibility findings.

Exhibit 4: OIE report summary reflecting the formal conclusion of insufficient evidence.

Exhibit 5 — Transcript (Formal Dismissal Proceedings, November 2017)

Excerpt from formal dismissal proceedings against Dr. Bradley Foerster, in which the OIE report was introduced by the Medical Dean’s outside attorney, Dan Tukel, and referenced in the course of the proceedings.

“It can’t be said politely, as regrettable as it is, [Altaee] has flat out lied. She has not misspoken once or gotten a minor detail confused.”

The full transcript pages are provided below for reference.

Exhibit 5: Transcript excerpt reflecting introduction and use of the OIE report during formal dismissal proceedings.

Related Reporting

• DOJ Confirms 500+ Page FBI File on Bradley Foerster in Russia-Gate FOIA Case; Records Set for Release May 4, 2026
• President Grasso Denies Foerster FOIA Appeal – UMPD Police Report Referenced in AAPD Communication (Dr. Eva Feldman)
• Ann Arbor Independent Community Police Oversight Committee Review of $1.4M Missing Funds From Sheriff’s Sale
• Dr. Bradley Foerster Files Litigated FOIA Appeal Following President Grasso Denial – Medical Peer Review Decision (Psychiatry)

Brad Foerster, MD PhD

Brad Foerster is a FOIA advocate documenting requests, transparency disputes, and accountability investigations involving public agencies, universities, police oversight, and Russia-Gate related inquiries. His work compiles original documents, timelines, and analysis of public records and institutional responses. Brad is also a board-certified radiologist, author of Town & Gown, and has published over 40 peer-reviewed articles. Brad lives in Potomac, Maryland with his family and is active in the Montgomery County Medical Society and the Takoma Park U.S. & World History Book Club.