Heidi Anderson, president of the University of Maryland Eastern Shore, is suing the former professor who accused her of plagiarism, seeking $1 million in damages.
Andersonβs suit alleges that Donna Satterlee, who taught human ecology at the university until last year, defamed the president when she claimed several paragraphs of Andersonβs 400-page dissertation from 1986 were lifted verbatim from another academic paper.
The case heads to court for an injunction hearing on Friday and marks Andersonβs first legal action since a series of complaints against university leadership emerged this summer.
Four current and former employees at the small, historically Black college in Princess Anne have filed separate suits since July, levying accusations that range from sabotaging academic standards to fraud.
Satterlee is one of them, claiming that she was unlawfully terminated, and that the university preferentially hired African American employees over white and Asian applicants.
She is representing herself in the suit, which names Anderson, members of her leadership team and system Chancellor Jay Perman. The stateβs attorney generalβs office filed a motion to dismiss Satterleeβs case in October, arguing that at the time of her βvoluntary resignationβ she waived her right to bring any legal action against UMES.
Read More
Anderson did not respond to requests for comment on the defamation lawsuit.
Satterlee, in a phone interview, said she was worried about the suit but had βno regrets.β Satterlee doesnβt have a lawyer and said she has never been in court before.
The system, through its spokesperson Michael Sandler, declined to comment on Satterleeβs case, but noted that the Office of the Attorney General and the University System of Maryland are not involved in Andersonβs defamation lawsuit.
Satterlee told The Banner in October that she put Andersonβs dissertation through computer software that looks for and flags instances of potential plagiarism. She said at the time she scrutinized Andersonβs dissertation because of negative interactions she had with the UMES president previously.
After the allegations came to light, Anderson requested an assessment of the claims, which the University System of Maryland is currently conducting.
Anderson has served as president of the HBCU in Somerset County, which this fall received a second gift of $38 million from billionaire philanthropist MacKenzie Scott, since 2018. She earned her doctoral degree in pharmacy administration from Purdue University, where she published the dissertation in question.
She is the second college president in the public university system accused of plagiarizing. University of Maryland, College Park President Darryll Pines was accused last fall of inappropriately lifting passages without attribution in a scientific paper he co-authored in 2002. The university system concluded its investigation last week, clearing Pines of wrongdoing. They are among a growing number of Black university leaders across the country accused of plagiarism.
Anderson, according to the lawsuit she filed in October, has suffered βsevere reputational damageβ; a loss of professional and economic opportunities including speaking engagements; βhumiliation and emotional distressβ; and ongoing harm to her credibility and career prospects, which she claims are βworth in the six figures.β Andersonβs base salary, according to a system spokesperson, is $438,956.
The suit accuses Satterlee of acting with βactual maliceβ by publicizing the plagiarism accusations. The Banner was the first to report her allegations.
Andersonβs personal lawsuit states that Satterleeβs plagiarism allegations caused her βsevere emotional distress, including anxiety, humiliation, sleeplessness and reputational shame.β
The lawsuit claims that Satterleeβs allegations are false, citing an affidavit submitted by Holly Mason, a professor emeritus at Purdue University who oversaw Andersonβs 1986 doctoral dissertation. Masonβs affidavit states that he reviewed each chapter of the dissertation, provided guidance on citations and that no member of the doctoral committee identified any errors in citation, according to the lawsuit.
UMESβ Board of Visitors wrote a letter in late September supporting Anderson.
βIn recent months and years, the University of Maryland Eastern Shore (UMES), its president Dr. Heidi M. Anderson, and members of her leadership team have been the targets of a series of unfounded and deeply troubling accusations,β the letter signed by board members reads. βThese claims β ranging from allegations of discrimination and fiscal mismanagement to a recent, anonymously sourced charge of plagiarism β are not only baseless but also appear to follow a calculated pattern aimed at discrediting Dr. Andersonβs leadership and legacy.β
While Anderson chose to countersue Satterlee, there are other lawsuits she has not yet addressed.
Cui Fang, another former professor at the university, is representing herself in a lawsuit that claims leadership at the HBCU sabotaged academic standards, falsified enrollment numbers and engaged in fraud with federal funds. The stateβs attorney general office filed a motion to dismiss the case in October, finding it βrife with personal grievances and critiques of the universityβs administration and staff.β
The claims in Fangβs lawsuit echo those made by Sandeep Gopalan, a current faculty member who previously served as vice president for research at the university, as well as a lawsuit filed in August by Jacob Doe, a pseudonym for a faculty member at the university.
The Doe lawsuit alleges university leadership launched a βsmear campaignβ and falsely accused him of creating a hostile work environment. The stateβs attorney generalβs office filed in December to dismiss Doeβs case, arguing that his suit βfails to plausibly allegeβ any of his complaints.
Gopalan, who is also representing himself, is accusing Anderson and other leaders at the university and the state system of fraud concerning federal research grants.
The stateβs attorney generalβs office filed a motion to dismiss Gopalanβs case in November, arguing that the βsprawling lawsuitβ by Gopalan consists βlargely of disjointed and unrelated grievances.β
βSetting Dr. Gopalanβs personal opinions aside,β the stateβs motion to dismiss reads, βhe presents no facts that the individual defendants were grossly negligent or acted with malice."
Banner reporter Dylan Segelbaum contributed to this article.
Correction: This story has been updated to reflect that Princess Anne is a town, not a county.
About the Education Hub
This reporting is part of The Bannerβs Education Hub, community-funded journalism that provides parents with resources they need to make decisions about how their children learn. Read more.






Comments
Welcome to The Banner's subscriber-only commenting community. Please review our community guidelines.