Personnel Probe Casts Doubt on Dominic Caserta’s Credibility

It took more than a year, but Foothill College’s independent review of allegations that Dominic Caserta sexually harassed one of his students has finally come to a close.

And the findings don’t look good for the disgraced poli-sci professor and former Santa Clara councilman, whose campaign for higher office was derailed last year by the same young woman who filed the complaint at Foothill.

An investigation summary dated July 22 and signed by a three-member personnel panel deemed the accuser, 21-year-old German exchange student Lydia Jungkind, more credible than the accused.

“Most compellingly, her accounts were largely corroborated by documentary evidence including contemporaneous text messages between Ms. Jungkind and other[s] regarding the alleged incidents.”

Caserta, apparently, was less convincing.

“On the other hand, the witness and documentary evidence tended to refute several of Mr. Caserta’s material representations, including his ‘exoneration’ of wrongdoing following a prior allegation of sexual harassment, statements from witnesses that directly contradict Mr. Caserta’s statements, and his apparent misrepresentation to a De Anza College administrator that he had been ‘cleared’ to return to teaching (when in fact he had not),” the ruling reads.

To add insult to Caserta’s self-inflicted injury, a key witness he handpicked to help his case wound up making things worse by contradicting his version of events.

Ultimately, the panel convened by the Foothill-De Anza College District upheld six findings of misconduct by Caserta, including that he showered Jungkind with comments about how “hot” and “sexy” she is, thrust his crotch against her butt and, in multiple instances, couldn’t seem to keep his grubby paws off his then-19-year-old pupil and part-time campaign aide.

The DA may have cited a lack of evidence when it declined to prosecute Caserta for sexual battery last year, but at least, for Jungkind’s sake, accountability has come in other forms.

Source: Foothill College

Send a tip to The Fly

The Fly is a weekly column written by San Jose Inside staff that provides a behind-the-scenes look at local politics.

9 Comments

  1. Credibility. On the note of credibility, one must wonder why Lydia and Ian have refused to take a lie detector test even when Caserta has already offer pay for such a test. Last time I checked guilty people are the only ones who refused to testify, to be put under such high levels of scrutiny. So to Lydia and Ian if you’re so truthfully, take the polygraph

    • Will Caserta use his campaign account to pay for their lie detector tests? Yep if you gave Caserta money it went for his sexual harrassment suit. Guess what? Stephen Ross have money to Caserta and Donald Trump.

    • Familiar with the new #GreenShirtGuy meme, I would like to apply that to Elise’s comment. I am amazed you had the voracity to attempt shaming the victims. That is comical.

    • There is a reason why a lie detector test is not admissible as past of evidence or credibility. You are applying chip and old science to support your argument. Do you research!

    • One doesn’t have to wonder about a victim not taking a lie detector test. Wasn’t just one, two, or three victims… The “system” isn’t always fair, but one thing doesn’t change, repeated inexcusable behavior will eventually catch up to the accused. The saddest part of this story, status quo with school administrators who kept turning a blind eye which allowed Caserta to keep hitting the repeat button. I mean, really, how could a clean shaven white married guy with a kid who was an educator, and City of Santa Clara Council member possibly do anything inappropriate?

      Yesterday, Dr. William Strampel was sentenced to 11 months in county jail, a distinguished looking man and former Michigan State University Dean. “Dr. Strampel allegedly told a group of students and administrators that he didn’t believe female patients who alleged abuse by Nassar, and didn’t want to fire him in 2016.” (WSJ, Melissa Korn, Aug 7, 2019)

      Turning the other cheek is not a pretty look on anyone.

  2. Could you please post a link to the full investigation summary ruling that the quotes were excerpted from. Thanks.

  3. I dunno. I think Caserta probably sexually harassed students. But I wasn’t there to witness any of it, and it’s difficult to ascertain from blog comments which accounts are more accurate.

    So… what’s wrong with taking a polygraph? I’ve been told that if the DA arranges a polygraph test and it exonerates a suspect, the DA is very unlikely to charge that person. That’s hearsay of course, but the question remains valid.

    Caserta is entitled to defend himself, and this proposal seems reasonable. Unless some folks believe that his accusers would never fib about anything like this. Why would they lie about what happened? After all, they’re not planning to write a book, are they? And none of them could have any other reason to stick it to a teacher, like if he gave them a lower grade than they thought they deserved.

    People are liars. That’s a fact. Not everyone is, but I recall the idiom: “[He/she] lies like a child!”

    The younger a person is, the more likely that they’d believe they can get away with telling a lie. That’s because they’re naive; they don’t understand that telling a credible lie isn’t easy at all. Other people aren’t stupid, and their listeners can usually see through their lie. But it takes some experience to understand that.

    Anyway, Caserta is toast. He’s unemployable now, and I have no problem at all with that.

    But the gauntlet is down now. Caserta has challenged people who made specific acusations against him, to put up or shut up. It’s interesting that instead of simply taking the test, his accusers are hiding behind a litany of excuses. But compared to their keeping their credibility, their excuses are weak tea.

    Caserta has directly challenged their honesty. In response, they’re being evasive. So not all of Caserta’s accusers were telling the truth, it seems. That’s what it looks like.

    They’re being accused of bearing false witness. That’s an extremely serious charge under the circumstances, and their excuses aren’t nearly sufficient to let them avoid taking the test.

    Bearing false witness is every bit as serious a charge as whatever Caserta was charged with, and maybe more serious. And these particular accusers were right in the middle of it, fanning the flames.

    If they refuse to take the polygraph… they’re ipso facto lying.

    (Take the test. They can always claim it’s the machine…)

    On a related subject, I’ve asked this question several times but no one has ever posted an answer: what happened to the long time school district employee who “accidentally” broadcast Caserta’s confidential personnel file out to hundreds of recipients?

    She had been on the job a long time, and she never did that to anyone else. Is she still drawing a paycheck at taxpayer expense, as I suspect? Or, did she get the same discipline that anyone in the private sector would have received, if they had severely violated another employee’s confidentiality like that?

    Whether it was deliberate, or because of gross incompetence, that doesn’t matter. If anyone in the private sector did that, they would have been promptly terminated. No public company can justify to its shareholders why such an employee was still on the payroll, since from a legal standpoint that would jeopardize both the company’s officers, and the shareholders’ financial assets.

    Therefore, a public company would dismiss such an incompetent employee (or worse, such an untrustworthy employee) from its payroll. Assuming that employee is still on the school district’s payroll, can anyone explain why taxpayers are saddled with that ongoing liability?

  4. How long does he continue to draw his $10K monthly pay fr om the SCUSD? Is it for the rest of his life?

Leave a Reply