Dr. Rich Suplita | Official Statement and Case ReviewSetting the Record Straight: Administrative Mismanagement and My Exit from UGAA Statement by Dr. Rich SuplitaFor over a decade, an inaccurate, one-sided institutional narrative has circulated regarding my departure from the University of Georgia (UGA) in May 2015. Legacy local media outlets have repeatedly refused to correct the record or include critical facts.Because an uncorrected record risks bringing unfair disrepute to my reputation, my career, and my current ministry work, I am publishing the absolute, verifiable truth regarding the systematic administrative failures that took place.The public record often lazily frames my exit as a "forced resignation due to misconduct." This is not only factually inaccurate—it is a complete distortion of what actually occurred. The reality is that I chose to walk away from UGA at the conclusion of my contract because the university administration denied me basic constitutional and administrative due process.Here are the facts of the case, backed by University System of Georgia (USG) protocol:1. Proactive TransparencyIn July 2014, my partner (a Ph.D. student who had briefly served as a Graduate Teaching Assistant for a summer course I taught) and I met proactively with my departmental supervisor. We explicitly asked if pursuing a personal relationship would violate university policy. Believing we were given an unequivocal verbal approval, we made our relationship public on Facebook the very day the summer course concluded. We hid nothing.2. The Investigator's Bias and the EOO ReportIn September 2014, UGA’s Equal Opportunity Office (EOO), led by an investigator with a history of handling prior disputes involving me, launched an investigation. The EOO claimed that because our relationship technically commenced days before final summer grades were fully processed through the registrar, it violated the university's Non-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment (NDAH) policy. On October 15, 2014, the EOO issued a report recommending my termination.An investigator’s recommendation, however, is not a final verdict. It is an accusation.3. The Denial of My Mandated Faculty HearingUnder USG Board of Regents Policy Manual Section 8.3.9, any faculty member facing a termination recommendation is explicitly entitled to a formal, impartial hearing before an elected body of their peers—a multi-person Faculty Hearing Committee.The purpose of this plurality of perspectives is to prevent individual administrative bias from dictating a professor's fate.In late October 2014, out of deep exasperation with how the EOO abused its scope, I formally rejected the investigator's findings and invoked my right to a USG appeal, demanding that my case be sent to the faculty review panel.Per USG and UGA bylaws, once a faculty member files this appeal, the university administration is bound by a strict 5-to-10 day window to forward the case file to the Faculty Hearing Committee.UGA completely failed to do this.
Throughout November and December 2014, the university administration sat on the paperwork. By stalling the file, UGA halted the legal timeline and effectively blocked the assembly of the impartial board.Because the university refused to convene the panel, the investigator's claims of misconduct were never legally or formally validated by the university's governing faculty body.4. Completing My Duties and Walking AwayBecause my formal appeal was pending and the university had failed to legally advance the hearing process to execute a termination, my active employment could not be summarily canceled. I maintained my professional integrity, refused to break my contract, and fully performed all teaching and academic duties through the Spring 2015 semester.By May 2015, facing a completely broken working environment and an administration that intentionally denied me a fair hearing, I chose not to seek a renewal of my 10-month contract. I allowed it to expire naturally and walked away from corporate academia entirely on my own terms to pursue campus ministry.ConclusionTo say I was "forced out for misconduct" implies a standard of guilt that was verified by the institution. In truth, the University of Georgia acted outside its authorized administrative scope and violated its own strict USG deadlines.I did not flee from an investigation; I chose to leave an institution that refused to grant me a fair trial. I completed my duties honorably, and I moved forward into the next chapter of my life with my integrity intact.This statement, alongside the formal administrative memorandum and relevant USG policy citations, stands as the permanent, true record of these events.
Official Memorandum and USG Citations:1. PURPOSEThis memorandum serves to document the precise chronological sequence of administrative actions involving former psychology lecturer Dr. Rich Suplita and the University of Georgia (UGA) during the 2014–2015 academic year. It highlights critical deviations from University System of Georgia (USG) due process requirements, specifically the institution's failure to forward the case to an impartial faculty review panel.2. CHRONOLOGICAL TIMELINE OF EVENTSPhase I: Proactive Disclosure and Departmental ClearanceJuly 28, 2014: Dr. Suplita and his partner (a Ph.D. student who had served as a Graduate Teaching Assistant for his summer course) met proactively with his department supervisor. They requested clarification on whether a personal relationship would pose a policy conflict. Believing they were given an unequivocal verbal approval, they moved forward.July 29, 2014: Following the conclusion of the final summer semester class, the couple made their relationship public on Facebook, demonstrating full transparency.Phase II: Investigation and Termination RecommendationSeptember 2014: The UGA Equal Opportunity Office (EOO), led by investigator Kristopher Stevens, initiated an investigation. The EOO alleged a violation of the Non-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment (NDAH) policy, arguing the relationship technically commenced before final summer grades were completely processed.October 15, 2014: The EOO officially issued a report finding Dr. Suplita in violation of the NDAH policy. Based on this finding, the office issued a formal administrative recommendation for termination.Late October 2014: Dr. Suplita formally rejected the EOO’s conclusion, citing extreme "exasperation and disgust" regarding investigator bias and abuse of scope. He initiated his explicit right under USG policy to appeal the recommendation and demanded a formal hearing before a multi-person faculty review panel.Phase III: Administrative Stalling and Failure of Due Process
November 2014: Critical Procedural Breakdown.Under USG and UGA bylaws, once a faculty member appeals a dismissal recommendation, the administration faces a strict 5-to-10 day window to forward the case file to the elected Faculty Hearing Committee.December 2014: The UGA administration failed to forward the case file to the designated panel. By withholding the documentation, the university halted the standard legal timeline and blocked the assembly of a multi-perspective, impartial review board.Phase IV: Contract Completion and SeparationJanuary – May 2015: Because the formal appeal remained un-adjudicated and the university failed to advance the hearing process, a summary termination could not legally be executed. Dr. Suplita maintained his professional integrity and continued to fully perform his contract duties through the spring semester.May 2015: Due to the broken working environment and the university's refusal to grant a fair hearing, Dr. Suplita declined to seek a contract renewal. His existing 10-month academic contract expired naturally, and he exited the university on his own terms to pursue campus ministry.3. KEY ADMINISTRATIVE FINDINGSDenial of a Plurality Decision:The institutional framework requires that an investigator's finding be vetted by a jury of peers to eliminate individual bias. Because UGA failed to convene the mandatory faculty review panel, the EOO's recommendation was never legally or formally validated by the university's governing body.Mischaracterization of Departure:Describing Dr. Suplita’s departure as a "forced resignation for misconduct" is factually inaccurate and reputation-damaging. The record indicates a voluntary contract non-renewal driven entirely by administrative mismanagement and a denial of basic administrative justice.To support the chronological findings and validate the claims of administrative non-compliance, the following specific legal and policy citations are hereby appended to the administrative record:
1. Right to a Faculty Hearing Prior to Dismissal
Citation: USG Board of Regents Policy Manual, Section 8.3.9 ("Discipline and Removal of Faculty Members" / Formerly 8.3.9.2).Application: This policy explicitly mandates that no tenured faculty member, nor any non-tenured faculty member before the end of their contract term, may be dismissed for cause unless the institution strictly complies with procedural due process requirements. This process legally includes the right to a formal hearing before an elected faculty committee.
2. Mandatory Institutional Timelines for Forwarding Cases
Citation: USG Academic Affairs Handbook & Corresponding Institutional Statutes of the University of Georgia (Procedures for Dismissal).Application: Under the governing administrative bylaws, once a faculty member files a formal notice contesting an investigator's termination recommendation, the institutional executive authority (the President or designated Faculty Affairs Officer) shall forward the case file and formal statement of charges to the Chair of the Faculty Hearing Committee within a mandatory 5-to-10 calendar day window.The Breakdown: UGA's failure to transmit Dr. Suplita's file to the committee in late 2014 directly violated this directive, frozen the process, and prevented the committee from issuing its contractually required 15-day pre-hearing notice to the respondent.3. Requirement for a Plurality Decision (Impartial Panel)
Citation: USG Policy Manual Section 8.3.9.2 (Procedures for Dismissal - Hearing Committee).
Application: The policy dictates that the hearing body must consist of an impartial, elected panel of faculty peers. The explicitly stated purpose of this multi-person architecture is to act as an independent fact-finding body, ensuring that institutional employment actions do not rely solely on the unchecked findings or potential biases of a single administrative investigator.4. Constructive Discharge vs. Voluntary Separation
Citation: Georgia Employment Law & USG Human Resources Administrative Practices Manual (HRAP).
Application: While an institution may record an employee's final separation as a "resignation" or "contract non-renewal", applicable labor standards deem a departure involuntary if it is forced by administrative obstruction or a denial of contractually guaranteed due process. Walking away from an unconstitutionally stalled termination track constitutes a response to an intolerable administrative environment, not a standard voluntary resignation.These citations confirm that by failing to adhere to the rigid timeline constraints of Section 8.3.9, the University of Georgia acted outside its authorized administrative scope, rendering any informal labels of "dismissal for misconduct" contractually void and legally inaccurate.
Ministry Website: www.askaformeratheist.com
YouTube Video Statement