WITNESS INTERVIEW SUMMARIES CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PREPARED AT THE DIRECTION OF COUNSEL IN ANTICIPATION OF LITIGATION
This document and all information contained herein are protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine. Unauthorized disclosure, copying, or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have received this document in error, please notify Calderwood & Harkness LLP immediately at (617) 555-8400.
Matter: Thornwick Medical Research Institute — Grievance Investigation: Dr. Marcus Ellender, Director, Biomedical Engineering Laboratories
C&H Matter No.: 1029-00002
Prepared by:
Nadia Petrov, Lead Associate, Labor & Employment, Calderwood & Harkness LLP James Underwood, Working Associate, Labor & Employment, Calderwood & Harkness LLP
Supervising Attorney: Renata Vasquez, Responsible Partner, Labor & Employment, Calderwood & Harkness LLP
Client: Thornwick Medical Research Institute, 480 Kendall Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02142 (EIN 04-3781256)
Date of Compilation: November 18, 2024
Date Range of Interviews: September 23, 2024 – November 13, 2024
Total Interview Sessions: 19
Total Unique Witnesses: 14
Right-click to update Table of Contents
PREFATORY NOTES AND METHODOLOGY
These witness interview summaries were prepared by attorneys Nadia Petrov and James Underwood of Calderwood & Harkness LLP, One Federal Place, Suite 3200, Boston, MA 02110, in connection with the independent workplace investigation retained by Thornwick Medical Research Institute ("TMRI") on September 10, 2024. The engagement was initiated at the direction of TMRI General Counsel Elena Graff following an escalation recommendation from TMRI's internal Human Resources department. Calderwood & Harkness LLP was engaged to conduct an independent, thorough, and impartial investigation into the grievances described below and to report its findings to TMRI.
The investigation addresses five grievances filed between August 12, 2024 and September 4, 2024, by five TMRI employees against Dr. Marcus Ellender, Director of the Biomedical Engineering Laboratories. Dr. Ellender has served as Director since January 2018 and holds supervisory authority over Labs B-1 through B-4, including all research scientists, lab technicians, and postdoctoral fellows assigned to those facilities. The grievances were filed pursuant to TMRI Employee Handbook § 7.3, which governs the formal grievance process for allegations of workplace misconduct.
The investigation covers four categories of alleged misconduct:
(1) Retaliation in violation of M.G.L. c. 149, § 185 (the Massachusetts Whistleblower Protection Act) and TMRI Policy HR-2021-009 (Anti-Retaliation Policy), including the alleged reassignment of an employee from a federally funded research project following her report of a safety concern;
(2) Hostile work environment under M.G.L. c. 151B, § 4 (the Massachusetts Fair Employment Practices Act) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., including allegations of verbal intimidation, demeaning language, discriminatory scheduling practices, and denial of professional-development opportunities;
(3) Safety-protocol violations under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. § 651 et seq., and the regulations promulgated thereunder at 29 C.F.R. § 1910.132 et seq. (Personal Protective Equipment standards), as well as the NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules (April 2024 edition), including allegations that employees were directed to bypass required personal protective equipment during aerosol-generating procedures and that safety incidents were improperly documented or not documented at all; and
(4) Falsification or alteration of records, including allegations that lab-notebook entries were altered to conceal the nature and scope of a biohazard-containment breach, and that safety-incident reports contained false narrative descriptions attributing equipment malfunctions to operator error rather than known maintenance deficiencies.
The client for this engagement is TMRI as the employer and the institutional entity. Calderwood & Harkness LLP does not represent any individual employee, officer, board member, or other person in connection with this matter. This distinction was communicated to all witnesses at the outset of each interview session as part of the Upjohn/corporate-Miranda warning described below.
Interview Format and Procedures. All interviews were conducted in person at one of two locations: Calderwood & Harkness LLP's Boston office at One Federal Place, Suite 3200, Boston, MA 02110, or TMRI's Cambridge headquarters at 480 Kendall Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02142. The selection of interview location was based on scheduling convenience, witness preference, and the sensitivity of the subject matter discussed. Each interview was attended by at least two attorneys from Calderwood & Harkness LLP — one serving as the lead interviewer and one serving as the notetaker — to ensure accuracy and completeness of the record.
At the outset of each interview session, the lead interviewer administered an Upjohn/corporate-Miranda warning, the full text of which is set forth in Appendix B to this compilation. The warning informed each witness that:
(a) the attorneys conducting the interview represent TMRI and not the individual witness;
(b) the communication during the interview is protected by the attorney-client privilege, which belongs to TMRI as the institutional client;
(c) TMRI may choose to waive the privilege at its discretion, including by disclosing the substance of the interview to third parties, governmental agencies, or in the course of litigation;
(d) the witness is expected to cooperate with the investigation pursuant to TMRI Employee Handbook § 7.3; and
(e) the witness should keep the substance of the interview confidential and not discuss it with colleagues or other persons not authorized by TMRI or Calderwood & Harkness LLP to receive such information.
Each witness was also expressly advised of the anti-retaliation protections available under TMRI Policy HR-2021-009 and M.G.L. c. 149, § 185. Witnesses were informed that TMRI prohibits retaliation against any employee who participates in good faith in an investigation, files a grievance, or provides truthful information to investigators, and that any concerns about retaliation should be reported immediately to Calderwood & Harkness LLP or to the TMRI VP-HR.
Each witness verbally confirmed his or her understanding of the Upjohn warning and agreed to proceed with the interview. In the case of the respondent interview (Dr. Marcus Ellender), his personal counsel, Rachel Whitmore of Hadley, Brennan & Morrow LLP, was present and acknowledged on the record that Dr. Ellender understood the warnings.
Nature of Interview Summaries. The interview summaries set forth in this compilation are paraphrased accounts of the substance of each interview session as prepared by counsel. They are not verbatim transcripts, and no audio or video recordings of the interviews were made. The summaries reflect counsel's professional judgment as to the material content of each witness's testimony and include notations regarding witness demeanor and preliminary credibility assessments. Where specific language is attributed to a witness or other individual in quotation marks, the quoted language reflects the witness's best recollection of the statement as communicated during the interview.
Document Collection. Documents referenced during the interviews are catalogued in the Document Collection and Review Log maintained by James Underwood. As of the date of this compilation, the document collection comprises 1,247 documents collected pursuant to the litigation-hold memorandum issued by General Counsel Elena Graff on September 13, 2024. The litigation hold covers all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible materials potentially relevant to the grievances and the investigation, including but not limited to emails, lab notebooks, safety-incident reports, performance-evaluation forms, scheduling records, HR files, and EHS audit reports. A cross-reference table identifying the specific documents shown to or discussed with witnesses during the interviews is provided in Appendix C.
PART I: COMPLAINANT INTERVIEWS
Interview 1 — Dr. Yuna Sakata (Complainant 1)
Session Information.
Background Information Provided by Witness
Dr. Yuna Sakata is a Senior Research Scientist assigned to Lab B-2 within the Biomedical Engineering Laboratories at TMRI. She has been employed at TMRI since March 2019, a tenure of approximately five and a half years at the time of this interview. In her role, Dr. Sakata conducts research in biomedical engineering, including experimental design, data analysis, and preparation of publications and grant-progress reports.
Dr. Sakata reports to Dr. Marcus Ellender in his capacity as Director of the Biomedical Engineering Laboratories. On a day-to-day basis, her work is supervised by Joanna Pratt, who serves as Lab B-2 Supervisor. Dr. Sakata described her relationship with Ms. Pratt as generally professional and collegial.
Dr. Sakata's primary research focus has been on work funded by NIH Grant No. 5R01-EB029174, a five-year award totaling $2.9 million (award period 2022–2027), on which Dr. Ellender is the named Principal Investigator. Dr. Sakata served as lead researcher on two sub-projects under the grant and had been centrally involved in the generation of preliminary data, experimental protocols, and manuscript drafts related to those sub-projects. She described her involvement with the grant as a significant component of her professional identity and career trajectory at TMRI.
Dr. Sakata described a generally positive working relationship with Dr. Ellender from the time of her hire in 2019 through approximately mid-2023. She stated that during this period, she found Dr. Ellender to be supportive of her research, responsive to questions about experimental design, and generally collegial in his interactions with her. However, she stated that the dynamic between them began to shift in approximately mid-2023, coinciding with occasions on which she raised questions about record-keeping practices in Lab B-2. She described these early concerns as relatively minor — involving discrepancies she noticed between experimental data logs and lab-notebook entries — and stated that when she raised them with Dr. Ellender, he dismissed them as "not a big deal" and told her to focus on her own work.
Substance of Grievance (Filed August 12, 2024)
Dr. Sakata's formal grievance, filed on August 12, 2024 pursuant to TMRI Employee Handbook § 7.3, alleges retaliation for her reporting of a safety concern. The substance of her grievance, as described during this interview, is as follows.
On August 2, 2024, Dr. Sakata made an oral report to Alan Murdoch, Director of Environmental Health & Safety at TMRI, regarding a chemical spill in Lab B-2 that she believed had not been properly documented or cleaned up in accordance with TMRI's safety-reporting protocols. Dr. Sakata stated that the spill occurred on or about July 30, 2024, and involved a corrosive solvent — specifically, she identified the substance as a formaldehyde-based fixative solution that was stored improperly and spilled during a routine transfer operation. She observed that no incident report had been filed in the Lab B-2 safety-incident log, that no decontamination log had been completed, and that the spill area appeared to have been only partially cleaned.
Dr. Sakata stated she initially raised the issue with her day-to-day supervisor, Joanna Pratt, on approximately August 1, 2024. According to Dr. Sakata, Ms. Pratt acknowledged the spill but stated she would "handle it" and advised Dr. Sakata not to escalate the matter. Dr. Sakata stated that she did not feel confident that the issue would be properly addressed through the Lab B-2 supervisory chain, in part because she believed Dr. Ellender had instructed Ms. Pratt not to file a formal incident report regarding the spill. Dr. Sakata stated that this belief was based on a conversation she overheard between Dr. Ellender and Ms. Pratt on or about August 1, 2024, in which Dr. Ellender stated words to the effect that the spill was "not worth the paperwork" and that filing a report would "invite unnecessary scrutiny." Dr. Sakata acknowledged she was not a direct participant in this conversation and that she heard the exchange while walking past Dr. Ellender's office, the door to which was partially open.
Because she felt the matter was not being properly handled through the Lab B-2 supervisory structure, Dr. Sakata made her report directly to EHS Director Alan Murdoch on August 2, 2024.
Within approximately eleven business days of her August 2 report to EHS, Dr. Sakata was reassigned from the NIH Grant No. 5R01-EB029174 project to what she described as a lower-profile internal project — specifically, a sterilization-protocol review that did not involve experimental research or data generation. The reassignment was communicated to her verbally by Joanna Pratt on approximately August 19, 2024. Dr. Sakata stated that no written documentation accompanied the reassignment, no meeting was scheduled to discuss it, and no performance-related justification was provided.
When Dr. Sakata asked Dr. Ellender directly why she was being moved off the grant, she states he said only that "the project needs fresh eyes" and declined to provide any further explanation. Dr. Sakata stated she found this justification to be pretextual and inconsistent with the timing of events.
During the interview, Dr. Sakata was shown the August 9, 2024 email from Dr. Ellender to Joanna Pratt, which reads in relevant part: "Sakata is becoming a problem — move her off the grant and onto the sterilization-protocol review." Dr. Sakata confirmed she had not previously seen this email and stated she had not been aware of its existence prior to the interview. She stated that the email corroborated her belief that the reassignment was retaliatory in nature and was motivated by her safety report rather than by any legitimate project or performance consideration.
Dr. Sakata described the impact of the reassignment on her career. She stated that her role as lead researcher on two sub-projects under the NIH grant was central to her professional development and publication record. She had been developing manuscripts for submission to peer-reviewed journals based on the sub-project data, and her removal from the grant jeopardized her ability to publish those findings as lead or corresponding author. She further stated that the reassignment to the sterilization-protocol review — which she described as a routine administrative task ordinarily assigned to more junior staff — was a de facto demotion in terms of the nature and prestige of the work, even though her title and compensation were not formally changed.
Additional Observations. Dr. Sakata stated she was aware of a biohazard-containment breach in Lab B-2 that occurred on September 14, 2023, involving BSL-2 (Biosafety Level 2) materials. Dr. Sakata stated she was not directly involved in the incident but learned of it from colleagues, including Sandra Nix, a Research Associate in Lab B-2 who was present at the time of the breach. Dr. Sakata stated that Sandra Nix had told her at the time that the breach had not been properly documented and that lab-notebook entries related to the incident appeared to have been altered after the fact. Dr. Sakata described this information as contributing to her broader concern that safety incidents in Lab B-2 were being systematically underreported or concealed.
Dr. Sakata expressed a more general concern that speaking up about safety issues at TMRI leads to professional retaliation. She stated that the culture within the Biomedical Engineering Laboratories under Dr. Ellender's leadership discouraged employees from raising safety concerns, and that employees who did raise such concerns were viewed as "troublemakers" and subjected to unfavorable treatment.
Dr. Sakata denied having any performance deficiencies that could have justified the reassignment. She stated that her most recent annual performance evaluation, authored by Dr. Ellender and dated in or about February 2024, rated her overall performance as "Exceeds Expectations." She noted that this evaluation was completed several months before the events giving rise to her grievance, and that no intervening performance concerns had been communicated to her, whether verbally or in writing.
Demeanor and Credibility Notes
Dr. Sakata was composed and consistent throughout the interview. She provided specific dates, names, and details without prompting and did not appear to embellish or speculate beyond the bounds of her personal knowledge. When the scope of her knowledge was limited — for example, regarding the September 14, 2023 biohazard-containment breach — she clearly identified the basis for her statements and distinguished between firsthand observation and information received from colleagues. Her account was internally consistent and was consistent with the documentary evidence reviewed during the interview.
Interview 2 — Trevor Hollins (Complainant 2)
Session Information.
Background Information Provided by Witness
Trevor Hollins is a Lab Technician III assigned to Lab B-3 within the Biomedical Engineering Laboratories at TMRI. He has been employed at TMRI since June 2020, a tenure of approximately four years and three months at the time of this interview. In his role, Hollins is responsible for equipment calibration, experimental setup, and routine maintenance operations for multiple ongoing research projects conducted in Lab B-3. He reports to Dr. Ellender as Director of the Biomedical Engineering Laboratories.
Hollins described himself as generally competent and dedicated in his work. He stated he had received satisfactory or better performance ratings in each of his annual performance evaluations from 2020 through 2023. He noted that his evaluations consistently reflected positive comments regarding his technical skills and reliability. However, he stated that his working relationship with Dr. Ellender began to deteriorate in early 2024 following an incident in which he reported an equipment malfunction directly to the EHS office rather than through the laboratory's internal chain of command.
Substance of Grievance (Filed August 19, 2024)
Hollins's formal grievance, filed on August 19, 2024 pursuant to TMRI Employee Handbook § 7.3, alleges a hostile work environment and falsification of records. The substance of his grievance, as described during this interview, is as follows.
Hollins alleged that Dr. Ellender created and maintained a hostile work environment within the Biomedical Engineering Laboratories, characterized by verbal intimidation and public humiliation during weekly lab meetings. Hollins described these meetings as a regular feature of laboratory operations, typically held on Monday mornings and attended by all research scientists, technicians, and postdoctoral fellows assigned to Labs B-1 through B-4. He stated that Dr. Ellender routinely used the meetings as a forum to criticize the work of individual technicians in front of their peers.
Hollins described specific incidents of verbal intimidation. He stated that on multiple occasions during the weekly lab meetings in the first half of 2024, Dr. Ellender raised his voice, used dismissive and demeaning language toward the technicians, and referred to them as "replaceable." Hollins stated that Dr. Ellender singled him out for particular criticism on several occasions, making statements such as "if you can't handle the basics, we'll find someone who can" in front of approximately fifteen to twenty colleagues. Hollins stated that these comments were not constructive feedback but were intended to humiliate him and create an atmosphere of fear.
Hollins stated that the hostile behavior intensified in early 2024 after he reported a centrifuge failure in Lab B-3 directly to the EHS office rather than reporting it first to Dr. Ellender through the lab's internal chain of command. Hollins explained that he reported the malfunction to EHS because he believed it posed an immediate safety risk — the centrifuge had exhibited signs of mechanical failure during operation, including unusual vibration and a burning smell — and he felt the situation warranted prompt attention from the safety team. He stated that after this report, Dr. Ellender confronted him in Lab B-3 and told him in a hostile tone that safety reports should go "through me, not around me." Hollins stated he understood this to mean that Dr. Ellender expected to control the reporting of safety incidents and was displeased that Hollins had gone directly to EHS.
In addition to the hostile-work-environment allegations, Hollins raised a critical concern regarding the falsification of safety-incident reports. Specifically, Hollins alleged that two safety-incident reports — designated as IR-2024-031 and IR-2024-038 in TMRI's incident-reporting system — contained falsified narrative descriptions. These reports, which pertained to equipment malfunctions in Lab B-3, attributed the malfunctions to operator error by Hollins, when in fact the equipment in question had known pre-existing maintenance issues that had been documented in prior maintenance logs and discussed in email communications among laboratory personnel.
Hollins stated that he reviewed copies of these incident reports after they were completed and found that the narrative descriptions were inconsistent with the facts as he understood them. Specifically, he noted that IR-2024-031 described a centrifuge imbalance as resulting from Hollins's failure to properly load the rotor, when in fact the centrifuge had a documented history of rotor-bearing degradation that had been flagged in a maintenance request submitted by Hollins himself several weeks earlier. Similarly, IR-2024-038 described a spectrophotometer malfunction as attributable to operator calibration error by Hollins, when in fact the spectrophotometer had been scheduled for replacement due to persistent calibration drift.
Hollins stated he believed Dr. Ellender authored or directed the false narrative descriptions in these reports for the purpose of creating a paper trail that could justify future disciplinary action against Hollins, including potential termination. Hollins described this as part of a pattern of retaliatory conduct following his direct report to EHS.
Additional Observations. Hollins stated that at least two other lab technicians in Labs B-3 and B-4 had expressed similar concerns about Dr. Ellender's behavior, including his management style, his attitude toward safety, and his treatment of technicians who raised concerns. Hollins stated these colleagues were afraid to file formal grievances because they feared professional retaliation from Dr. Ellender, who held significant authority over their continued employment, work assignments, and performance evaluations.
Hollins specifically mentioned Karen Ashby, a Lab Technician IV in Lab B-4, by name as someone who had personally witnessed Dr. Ellender's conduct during lab meetings and who could corroborate Hollins's account of the hostile atmosphere.
Hollins stated he had no prior disciplinary history at TMRI. He had never received a written warning, a verbal warning documented in his personnel file, or any form of formal corrective action during his entire tenure at the institution.
Demeanor and Credibility Notes
Hollins was visibly anxious during the interview, particularly when describing the public-humiliation incidents during lab meetings and the implied threat to his continued employment. Despite his anxiety, his account was consistent and detailed, and he provided specific dates, locations, and names of individuals involved. Several of the details he provided were later corroborated by documentary evidence reviewed in the document collection, including maintenance logs for the centrifuge and spectrophotometer, email threads discussing the equipment issues, and the text of the incident reports themselves. His account was also corroborated in material respects by other witnesses interviewed subsequently.
Interview 3 — Dr. Priya Chandrasekaran (Complainant 3)
Session Information.
Background Information Provided by Witness
Dr. Priya Chandrasekaran is a Postdoctoral Fellow in Lab B-1 within the Biomedical Engineering Laboratories at TMRI. She has been employed at TMRI since September 2022, a tenure of approximately two years at the time of this interview. Dr. Chandrasekaran holds a Ph.D. in Biomedical Engineering, and her appointment at TMRI is her first postdoctoral position following completion of her doctoral studies.
Dr. Chandrasekaran reports to Dr. Ellender in his capacity as Director of the Biomedical Engineering Laboratories. She described her mentorship relationship with Dr. Ellender as initially promising. She stated that when she first joined TMRI, Dr. Ellender was supportive of her research, met with her regularly to discuss her progress, and appeared invested in her professional development. However, she stated that this dynamic began to deteriorate in approximately mid-2023, when she perceived a shift in Dr. Ellender's attitude toward her. She attributed this shift, in part, to her having raised questions about what she perceived as inequitable scheduling practices within the lab.
Substance of Grievance (Filed August 26, 2024)
Dr. Chandrasekaran's formal grievance, filed on August 26, 2024 pursuant to TMRI Employee Handbook § 7.3, alleges discriminatory treatment and retaliation. The substance of her grievance, as described during this interview, encompasses three categories of alleged misconduct.
Discriminatory Scheduling. Dr. Chandrasekaran alleged that she was consistently assigned to weekend and holiday laboratory shifts at a significantly higher rate than her similarly situated colleagues — specifically, the other five postdoctoral fellows assigned to Labs B-1 through B-4 during the relevant period. She provided a comparison of scheduling records from January 2024 through August 2024, which she had compiled from records available to her through the lab's shared scheduling system. Her analysis showed that she was assigned approximately 60% more weekend and holiday shifts than the average of the other five postdoctoral fellows during that period. She stated that the disproportionate scheduling imposed a burden on her personal life and reduced the time available for her own research and professional development during regular working hours.
Denial of Conference-Attendance Opportunities. Dr. Chandrasekaran alleged that Dr. Ellender denied her requests to attend and present research at two national conferences in 2024. The names of the specific conferences were noted in the interview record but are withheld from this summary for privacy purposes. Dr. Chandrasekaran stated that her requests were submitted through the standard approval process for conference travel, and that they were denied by Dr. Ellender without a substantive explanation. She noted that two other postdoctoral fellows with similar seniority and research profiles — including Dr. Leah Brennan-Oates of Lab B-3 — were approved for conference attendance during the same period. Dr. Chandrasekaran stated she could identify no legitimate basis for the differential treatment.
Retaliatory Performance Review. Dr. Chandrasekaran alleged that her June 2024 annual performance review, authored by Dr. Ellender, was retaliatory in nature and was motivated by her having raised scheduling concerns to Grace Okenwa, Vice President of Human Resources, in approximately May 2024. The June 2024 performance review rated Dr. Chandrasekaran as "Needs Improvement" in the category of "teamwork and collaboration." Dr. Chandrasekaran stated this was the first negative rating she had ever received in any performance evaluation, at TMRI or elsewhere, and that the rating was not supported by specific examples or documented incidents. She stated she believed the negative rating was a direct response to her having gone outside the laboratory's chain of command to raise her scheduling concerns with VP-HR Okenwa.
Additional Observations. Dr. Chandrasekaran stated she believed that the pattern of unfavorable treatment she experienced might be related to her national origin (Indian) and her gender (female). She noted that she was one of only two postdoctoral fellows in the Biomedical Engineering Laboratories who are women and the only one of South Asian descent. However, she acknowledged candidly that she did not have direct evidence of discriminatory animus — that is, she had not heard Dr. Ellender make statements reflecting bias based on national origin or gender, and she was not aware of written communications evidencing such bias. She described her belief as based on the pattern of differential treatment and the absence of any legitimate justification for that treatment.
Dr. Chandrasekaran stated she was aware that other employees in the Biomedical Engineering Laboratories had filed or intended to file grievances against Dr. Ellender, but she emphasized that she had not coordinated with them in any way in the preparation or filing of her own grievance. She stated she filed independently based on her own experiences.
Demeanor and Credibility Notes
Dr. Chandrasekaran was articulate, organized, and measured throughout the interview. She provided documentary support for her scheduling claims in the form of the comparative analysis she had prepared, which was collected and added to the document-review log. She took care to distinguish between what she had personally observed and what she inferred from the circumstances, and she was forthright in acknowledging the limitations of her evidence regarding discriminatory intent. Her overall presentation was credible and reflective.
Interview 4 — Miguel Ferreira (Complainant 4)
Session Information.
Background Information Provided by Witness
Miguel Ferreira is a Lab Technician II assigned to Lab B-4 within the Biomedical Engineering Laboratories at TMRI. He has been employed at TMRI since January 2021, a tenure of approximately three years and nine months at the time of this interview. In his role, Ferreira performs aerosol-generating procedures, equipment maintenance, and other technical functions in support of the research programs conducted in Lab B-4. He reports to Dr. Ellender as Director of the Biomedical Engineering Laboratories.
Ferreira stated that his work in Lab B-4 regularly involves procedures classified as aerosol-generating, which require the use of personal protective equipment ("PPE") including respiratory protection as mandated by OSHA regulations at 29 C.F.R. § 1910.132 et seq. He described himself as familiar with the applicable safety protocols and stated he understood the importance of PPE compliance in the context of the work performed in Lab B-4.
Substance of Grievance (Filed August 30, 2024)
Ferreira's formal grievance, filed on August 30, 2024 pursuant to TMRI Employee Handbook § 7.3, alleges safety-protocol violations and retaliation. The substance of his grievance, as described during this interview, is as follows.
Ferreira alleged that on at least three separate occasions between March and July 2024, Dr. Ellender directed technicians in Lab B-4, including Ferreira, to proceed with aerosol-generating procedures without donning the required respiratory protection. Ferreira described these directives as clear and explicit, and stated that each occurred in the context of time-sensitive experiments where Dr. Ellender expressed frustration with the time required to complete the full PPE donning process.
Ferreira provided the following specific accounts of the three incidents:
First Incident (approximately March 2024): Ferreira stated that during a time-sensitive experiment involving aerosol generation, Dr. Ellender entered Lab B-4 and instructed the technicians present to proceed with the procedure without completing the full respiratory-protection protocol. Dr. Ellender stated words to the effect of "we don't have time for the full gear-up." Ferreira stated he complied with the directive because he felt he had no choice, given Dr. Ellender's authority over his employment.
Second Incident (approximately May 2024): Ferreira described a similar occurrence under comparable time-pressure circumstances. Dr. Ellender again directed technicians to proceed without respiratory protection, citing the urgency of the experiment. Ferreira stated he again complied.
Third Incident (approximately July 2024): Ferreira described a third occasion on which Dr. Ellender directed him to proceed without respiratory protection during an aerosol-generating procedure. On this occasion, Ferreira stated he pushed back, telling Dr. Ellender that the procedure required respiratory protection under OSHA regulations and TMRI safety protocols. Ferreira stated that Dr. Ellender responded by telling him, "If you want to keep working here, you'll do as I say." Ferreira described this statement as an implied threat to his continued employment.
Ferreira stated he reported his safety concerns to the TMRI EHS office — specifically to Alan Murdoch, Director of Environmental Health & Safety — in approximately late July 2024. Ferreira stated that shortly after making this report, Dr. Ellender began making comments to Ferreira about "insubordination" and "not being a team player." Ferreira stated these comments were made in the presence of other Lab B-4 personnel and contributed to an atmosphere of intimidation. He stated he feared termination for having raised safety concerns and believed Dr. Ellender was building a basis for adverse action against him.
Additional Observations. Ferreira identified Karen Ashby, a Lab Technician IV in Lab B-4, and Derek Loomis, a Research Associate in Lab B-4, as individuals who were present during one or more of the PPE-bypass incidents and who could provide corroborating testimony. Ferreira stated that Ashby was present during the approximately March 2024 and approximately May 2024 incidents, and that Loomis was present during the approximately July 2024 incident.
Ferreira stated that he kept contemporaneous notes of the dates and circumstances of the PPE-bypass directives in a personal notebook that he maintained separately from the official TMRI lab notebooks. He stated the personal notebook was not stored at TMRI premises and had not been altered or tampered with. He offered to provide copies of the relevant pages, which were subsequently collected and added to the document-review log.
Ferreira expressed genuine concern about the health implications of working without respiratory protection during aerosol-generating procedures. He stated he was worried about potential exposure to hazardous biological and chemical agents and noted that the long-term health effects of such exposure might not be immediately apparent. He stated he had not experienced any acute health symptoms following the incidents but was anxious about possible latent effects.
Demeanor and Credibility Notes
Ferreira was forthright and detailed throughout the interview. His account of the specific PPE-bypass incidents included dates (approximate month), specific locations within Lab B-4, the names of other individuals present, and the substance of Dr. Ellender's statements. He appeared genuinely concerned about his personal safety and the safety of his colleagues. His account was internally consistent, and the level of detail he provided — including his identification of corroborating witnesses and his preservation of contemporaneous notes — supported his credibility.
Interview 5 — Sandra Nix (Complainant 5)
Session Information.
Background Information Provided by Witness
Sandra Nix is a Research Associate assigned to Lab B-2 within the Biomedical Engineering Laboratories at TMRI. She has been employed at TMRI since November 2020, a tenure of approximately four years at the time of this interview. In her role, Nix conducts research experiments, maintains lab notebooks as part of her routine research duties, and assists with data collection and analysis.
Nix works under the day-to-day supervision of Joanna Pratt, the Lab B-2 Supervisor, and under the broader supervisory authority of Dr. Ellender as Director of the Biomedical Engineering Laboratories. Nix described her working relationship with Ms. Pratt as generally functional but noted that Ms. Pratt was, in her view, constrained in her ability to act independently due to Dr. Ellender's management style.
Substance of Grievance (Filed September 4, 2024)
Nix's formal grievance, filed on September 4, 2024 pursuant to TMRI Employee Handbook § 7.3 — the last of the five grievances giving rise to this investigation — alleges hostile work environment and falsification or alteration of records. The substance of her grievance, as described during this interview, represents some of the most serious allegations in this investigation.
Biohazard-Containment Breach and Record Alteration. Nix stated that she was present in Lab B-2 on September 14, 2023, when a biohazard-containment breach occurred involving BSL-2 (Biosafety Level 2) materials. She described the incident as a failure of the biological safety cabinet containment system during a procedure involving recombinant nucleic acid materials, resulting in potential exposure of lab personnel and the surrounding environment. Nix stated she made contemporaneous entries in the official Lab B-2 lab notebook documenting the nature, scope, and duration of the breach, including her observations regarding the approximate volume of biological material released, the duration of the containment failure before corrective measures were implemented, and the personnel present at the time.
Approximately one to two weeks after the breach — in late September or early October 2023 — Nix stated she observed that the lab-notebook pages she had written on September 14, 2023, and the days immediately following, had been altered. Specifically, she observed that entries in Dr. Ellender's handwriting had been added to or modified on those pages. The alterations were not limited to marginal annotations or supplementary comments, which Nix acknowledged would be within the scope of a PI's normal review function. Rather, Nix stated that the alterations included overwriting portions of her original entries, striking through factual descriptions she had written, and replacing them with descriptions that minimized the scope of the incident. For example, Nix stated that her original entry describing the approximate volume of material released was changed to reflect a significantly smaller quantity, and her notation regarding the duration of the containment failure was altered to indicate a shorter timeframe.
Nix identified fifteen specific lab-notebook pages in Lab B-2, spanning September through October 2023, that she believed had been altered. She stated she brought the alterations to the attention of her supervisor, Joanna Pratt, in approximately early October 2023. According to Nix, Ms. Pratt told her "not to worry about it" and stated that "Marcus handled it." Nix understood this to mean that Ms. Pratt was aware of the alterations and had accepted Dr. Ellender's actions without question.
Hostile Work Environment. In addition to the record-alteration allegations, Nix described a generally hostile atmosphere in Lab B-2 under Dr. Ellender's oversight. She stated that Dr. Ellender was dismissive of concerns raised by research associates and technicians, and that when she attempted to discuss the lab-notebook alterations or other issues, she was told she was "overthinking things" and to "focus on your actual job." She described a climate in which employees felt discouraged from raising concerns, and in which those who did raise concerns were marginalized.
Additional Observations. Nix stated she delayed filing a formal grievance for nearly a year — from approximately October 2023, when she first discovered the lab-notebook alterations, to September 4, 2024, when she filed her grievance. She explained the delay by stating that she feared retaliation from Dr. Ellender and felt that raising the issue through formal channels would jeopardize her employment. She stated she was motivated to come forward after learning in August 2024 that several of her colleagues had filed or were filing grievances against Dr. Ellender. She stated this knowledge gave her confidence that the institution would take the matter seriously and that she would not be alone in raising concerns.
Nix confirmed awareness of safety-incident reports IR-2024-031 and IR-2024-038, which were referenced in Trevor Hollins's grievance, though she stated she was not directly involved in their preparation and had no firsthand knowledge of the events they described.
Critically, Nix stated that she had preserved her original handwritten notes from September 14, 2023, which she made on a personal notepad contemporaneously with her lab-notebook entries. She explained that she had a habit of making personal notes as a backup, particularly when documenting significant events. She stated that these personal notes could be compared against the altered lab-notebook pages to demonstrate the nature and extent of the changes. She offered to provide copies of these notes, which were subsequently collected and added to the document-review log.
Demeanor and Credibility Notes
Nix was emotional at several points during the interview, particularly when describing the biohazard-containment breach itself and the discovery that her lab-notebook entries had been altered. She stated that the alteration of her work felt like a personal violation and undermined her trust in the integrity of the research environment. Despite her emotional state, her testimony was internally consistent, detailed, and supported by the documentary evidence she independently preserved. She was forthcoming in answering questions and did not appear to exaggerate or embellish her account. The existence of contemporaneous personal notes, preserved independently of the official lab records, provides a significant basis for corroborating her testimony and evaluating the nature of the alterations to the lab-notebook pages.
PART II: CORROBORATING-WITNESS INTERVIEWS
Interview 6 — Karen Ashby (Corroborating Witness)
Session Information.
Background Information Provided by Witness
Karen Ashby is a Lab Technician IV in Lab B-4 within the Biomedical Engineering Laboratories at TMRI. She holds the most senior technician position in Lab B-4 and has worked at TMRI for approximately four years. In her role, she performs and oversees a range of technical procedures, including aerosol-generating protocols, equipment maintenance, and quality-control functions. She reports to Dr. Ellender.
Summary of Testimony
Ashby corroborated key elements of Miguel Ferreira's account of PPE-protocol bypass directives by Dr. Ellender. She confirmed that she was personally present on at least two of the three occasions described by Ferreira — specifically, the incidents occurring in approximately March 2024 and approximately May 2024 — when Dr. Ellender directed technicians in Lab B-4 to proceed with aerosol-generating procedures without donning the required respiratory protection.
Ashby stated that on both occasions, Dr. Ellender's justification for bypassing the PPE protocol was time pressure related to experimental deadlines. She recalled that Dr. Ellender expressed impatience with the time required for the full gear-up process and directed the technicians to proceed without respiratory protection in order to avoid delays. Ashby stated she personally complied with Dr. Ellender's instructions on those occasions because she feared professional consequences — including unfavorable performance evaluations, undesirable work assignments, or termination — if she refused a direct order from the laboratory director.
Ashby also corroborated the general characterization of Dr. Ellender's management style provided by Ferreira, Hollins, and other witnesses. She confirmed that Dr. Ellender frequently raised his voice during weekly lab meetings and used language that the technicians found demeaning and intimidating. Specifically, she confirmed that Dr. Ellender used the word "replaceable" to describe technicians on multiple occasions, and that his conduct during meetings created an atmosphere in which employees were afraid to ask questions, raise concerns, or push back on directives they believed were inappropriate.
Ashby stated she had not filed her own formal grievance against Dr. Ellender because she feared retaliation. She stated she was concerned that filing a grievance would lead to adverse consequences for her employment, and she did not feel confident that the institution would protect her from such consequences. She stated, however, that she was willing to cooperate fully with the investigation and to provide truthful testimony about what she had witnessed.
Demeanor and Credibility Notes
Ashby was cautious throughout the interview and appeared nervous, particularly when discussing her own compliance with Dr. Ellender's PPE-bypass directives. Despite her visible anxiety, she provided specific details that were consistent with Ferreira's account and with contemporaneous emails and scheduling records reviewed in the document collection. She did not attempt to minimize her own role in the events she described and was candid about her reasons for not filing a grievance.
Interview 7 — Derek Loomis (Corroborating Witness)
Session Information.
Background Information Provided by Witness
Derek Loomis is a Research Associate in Lab B-4 within the Biomedical Engineering Laboratories at TMRI. He has been employed at TMRI for approximately three years. In his role, Loomis conducts experiments, assists with data collection, and provides research support in Lab B-4. He reports to Dr. Ellender.
Summary of Testimony
Loomis corroborated Ferreira's account and confirmed that he was personally present during the approximately July 2024 incident in which Dr. Ellender directed lab personnel to proceed with an aerosol-generating procedure without the required respiratory protection. Loomis provided a detailed account of the incident that was consistent with Ferreira's description. Specifically, Loomis stated he heard Dr. Ellender tell Ferreira words to the effect of "if you want to keep working here, you'll do as I say" when Ferreira objected to proceeding without proper PPE. Loomis stated this exchange occurred in Lab B-4 in the presence of at least two other personnel, and that the statement was delivered in a tone that Loomis characterized as threatening.
Loomis also confirmed that Dr. Ellender's general management approach within the Biomedical Engineering Laboratories involved frequent verbal criticism of subordinates, public shaming during lab meetings, and an overall atmosphere that discouraged employees from reporting safety concerns or questioning directives. Loomis stated that in his experience, employees who raised safety concerns were not explicitly punished but were treated differently afterward — for example, they were given less desirable assignments, received less mentorship attention, and were subjected to heightened scrutiny of their work.
Loomis stated that he had not personally been the target of direct retaliation by Dr. Ellender. However, he stated that his observation of how Dr. Ellender treated employees who raised concerns — including his treatment of Ferreira following the July 2024 incident — reinforced the general climate of fear in the laboratory.
Demeanor and Credibility Notes
Loomis was cooperative and matter-of-fact throughout the interview. He provided detailed testimony, including specific observations about the July 2024 PPE-bypass incident that were consistent with Ferreira's account in all material respects. His testimony regarding the broader management culture was also consistent with the accounts provided by other Lab B-4 personnel, including Ashby and Thomas Ng.
Interview 8 — Alan Murdoch (Corroborating Witness)
Session Information.
Background Information Provided by Witness
Alan Murdoch is the Director of Environmental Health & Safety ("EHS") at TMRI. He has served in this role for approximately six years and is responsible for overseeing safety compliance across all TMRI laboratories, including Labs B-1 through B-4 within the Biomedical Engineering Laboratories. His responsibilities include reviewing incident reports, conducting periodic safety audits, advising laboratory personnel on safety protocols, and coordinating with regulatory agencies on matters of EHS compliance.
Summary of Testimony
Murdoch confirmed that Dr. Yuna Sakata made an oral report to him on August 2, 2024, regarding an undocumented chemical spill in Lab B-2. Murdoch stated he took the report seriously and initiated an investigation into the matter. He reviewed the Lab B-2 safety-incident log and confirmed that no incident report had been filed for a chemical spill occurring on or about July 30, 2024. He described this omission as a clear violation of TMRI's safety-reporting protocols, which require that all spills involving hazardous or corrosive substances be documented in the incident log within 24 hours of the event and that a decontamination log be completed.
Murdoch stated he raised the matter with Dr. Ellender on or about August 5, 2024. He described the conversation as brief and unsatisfying. According to Murdoch, Dr. Ellender dismissed the spill as "minor" and stated it had been "already handled." Murdoch stated he pressed Dr. Ellender for documentation, but Dr. Ellender did not produce any, and the conversation ended without resolution. Murdoch stated he subsequently documented the missing incident report in his own records but did not escalate the matter further at that time, a decision he stated he now regretted.
Murdoch also confirmed that Miguel Ferreira contacted the EHS office in approximately late July 2024 to report concerns about PPE-protocol compliance in Lab B-4. Murdoch stated Ferreira described being directed by Dr. Ellender to proceed with aerosol-generating procedures without required respiratory protection. Murdoch stated he found the report concerning and planned to conduct an inspection of Lab B-4 practices, but the inspection was overtaken by the escalation of the broader investigation.
Regarding the September 14, 2023 biohazard-containment breach in Lab B-2, Murdoch provided important contextual information. He stated he was not notified of the breach until approximately one week after it occurred — a delay that itself constituted a violation of TMRI's biosafety-incident-notification protocol, which requires same-day notification to the EHS Director for any BSL-2 containment failure. When he was eventually informed, he received an incident report that he described as appearing to minimize the scope of the event. Murdoch stated he expressed concern at the time that the report did not fully capture the severity of the breach, but he did not independently verify the lab-notebook entries or conduct a thorough follow-up investigation. He stated this was a failure of oversight on his part and attributed it in part to the volume of his other responsibilities and in part to the deference he gave to Dr. Ellender's standing as a senior scientist and PI.
Murdoch provided additional systemic context by noting that the six TMRI EHS audit reports covering the period from 2022 through 2024 had reflected recurring concerns about documentation completeness in the Biomedical Engineering Laboratories. Specifically, he stated that auditors had flagged incomplete incident logs, missing decontamination records, and inconsistent documentation practices in Labs B-1 through B-4 on multiple occasions. He stated he had raised these general concerns with Dr. Ellender in periodic meetings over the past two years, and that his concerns were consistently met with resistance or dismissal by Dr. Ellender.
Demeanor and Credibility Notes
Murdoch was candid throughout the interview and appeared genuinely frustrated that his prior concerns about safety compliance in the Biomedical Engineering Laboratories had not been adequately addressed by TMRI's institutional leadership. He provided extensive background context regarding the systemic nature of the safety-documentation deficiencies and was forthcoming about his own failure to escalate the September 2023 biohazard-containment breach more aggressively. His testimony was consistent with documentary evidence, including the EHS audit reports and the communication logs reviewed in the document collection.
Interview 9 — Joanna Pratt (Corroborating Witness)
Session Information.
Background Information Provided by Witness
Joanna Pratt is the Lab B-2 Supervisor within the Biomedical Engineering Laboratories at TMRI. She reports directly to Dr. Ellender and has held her supervisory position for approximately three years. In her role, she is responsible for the day-to-day management of Lab B-2, including work assignments, scheduling, safety compliance, and supervision of the research scientists and technicians assigned to the lab.
Summary of Testimony
Pratt's testimony was significant because she occupies a position in the supervisory chain between Dr. Ellender and several of the complainants, and her account touched on multiple categories of alleged misconduct.
Regarding the Reassignment of Dr. Sakata. Pratt confirmed that she received the August 9, 2024 email from Dr. Ellender instructing her to move Dr. Sakata off NIH Grant No. 5R01-EB029174 and onto the sterilization-protocol review. Pratt stated that when she received the email, she understood it as a directive from Dr. Ellender and carried it out accordingly. When asked whether there was a documented performance justification for the reassignment — such as a memorandum identifying performance concerns, a project-resource analysis, or a supervisory recommendation — Pratt stated she was not aware of any such documentation. She stated she did not independently evaluate whether the reassignment was warranted but simply implemented Dr. Ellender's instruction.
Pratt acknowledged that she did not push back on or question the reassignment directive with Dr. Ellender. When asked why, she stated that she felt constrained by Dr. Ellender's authority over her continued employment and did not believe that questioning his decisions would be well-received. She described a dynamic in which Dr. Ellender expected his directives to be carried out without discussion or challenge.
Regarding the July 30, 2024 Chemical Spill. Pratt confirmed she was aware of the chemical spill in Lab B-2 that occurred on or about July 30, 2024, and that was reported by Dr. Sakata to EHS Director Alan Murdoch on August 2, 2024. Pratt stated that Dr. Ellender told her the spill "wasn't worth the paperwork" and to handle it informally — meaning to clean it up without filing a formal incident report. Pratt stated she followed Dr. Ellender's instruction and did not file an incident report.
Regarding the September 14, 2023 Biohazard-Containment Breach. Pratt stated she was aware of the biohazard-containment breach in Lab B-2 on September 14, 2023. She confirmed that Dr. Ellender reviewed the lab-notebook entries related to the breach after the fact. She confirmed Sandra Nix's account of the conversation in which Pratt told Nix "not to worry about it" and that "Marcus handled it." Pratt stated that she made these statements based on her understanding that Dr. Ellender had taken responsibility for addressing the breach and its documentation, and that she deferred to his judgment as the senior scientist and PI.
However, Pratt stated that she did not personally observe Dr. Ellender in the act of altering lab-notebook entries. She stated she was aware that Dr. Ellender reviewed the notebook pages but did not independently examine them before and after his review. She therefore could not confirm or deny from personal observation whether the changes constituted improper alteration as opposed to routine PI annotation.
Pratt expressed regret about not having escalated the issues she was aware of. She stated she felt trapped between her obligation to follow Dr. Ellender's directives as her supervisor and her recognition that some of those directives were inappropriate. She described the situation as a "no-win" position and stated she believed her job security depended on her compliance with Dr. Ellender's instructions.
Demeanor and Credibility Notes
Pratt appeared visibly conflicted throughout the interview. She was cooperative and answered questions directly, but she was clearly uncomfortable discussing her own role in carrying out Dr. Ellender's directives, particularly the reassignment of Dr. Sakata and the decision not to file an incident report for the chemical spill. Her testimony was consistent with the email evidence, the accounts of Dr. Sakata and Sandra Nix, and other documentary records reviewed during the investigation. Her expressions of regret appeared genuine, and her candid acknowledgment of her own complicity in the events at issue lent credibility to her overall account.
Interview 10 — Dr. Fiona Marchetti (Corroborating Witness)
Session Information.
Background Information Provided by Witness
Dr. Fiona Marchetti is a Senior Research Scientist in Lab B-1 within the Biomedical Engineering Laboratories at TMRI. She has been employed at TMRI for approximately five years and works alongside Dr. Priya Chandrasekaran in Lab B-1. Dr. Marchetti holds a doctoral degree and has seniority over the postdoctoral fellows in the lab.
Summary of Testimony
Dr. Marchetti corroborated Dr. Chandrasekaran's account of disproportionate weekend and holiday scheduling. She confirmed that she and other Lab B-1 personnel had observed over the course of 2024 that Dr. Chandrasekaran was assigned weekend shifts far more frequently than the other postdoctoral fellows in Labs B-1 through B-4. Dr. Marchetti stated that the disparity was noticeable and was a topic of informal conversation among Lab B-1 staff. She stated she had no direct knowledge of why Dr. Chandrasekaran was treated differently from her postdoctoral peers but noted that Dr. Ellender appeared to single her out for criticism more than other postdocs, including making comments about the quality of her work in group settings that Dr. Marchetti did not believe were warranted.
Dr. Marchetti stated she had attended weekly lab meetings at which Dr. Ellender used demeaning language toward staff. She confirmed that Dr. Ellender referred to technicians as "replaceable" on more than one occasion and that his tone during meetings was often aggressive and intimidating.
Dr. Marchetti stated she had not witnessed any conduct that she would characterize as explicitly discriminatory on the basis of national origin or gender. However, she described an overall climate of favoritism in which certain employees received preferential treatment from Dr. Ellender — in terms of scheduling, conference opportunities, and mentorship attention — while others did not, and she stated she could not identify an objective basis for the differential treatment.
Demeanor and Credibility Notes
Dr. Marchetti was composed and measured throughout the interview. She limited her testimony to what she had personally observed and was careful not to speculate about Dr. Ellender's motiv