The Utah Tech University Sticky Notes Lawsuit Explained

The Utah Tech sticky notes lawsuit is a federal civil rights case filed in November 2024 by three senior Utah Tech University employees who say the school’s leaders tolerated a breakroom display of sexually explicit Post-it notes, then retaliated against the compliance officers whose job it was to investigate. The case, Broadbent v. Williams, is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. As of April 2026 it remains in its early stages: the judge has allowed the plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint, which wiped out the defendants’ pending motions to dismiss and means the university must respond again before the case can move forward.¹

What the Sticky Notes Were

According to the complaint, staff in Utah Tech’s marketing department kept a running collection of crude, sexually explicit comments written on Post-it notes and displayed them on a cabinet in a staff breakroom. The notes accumulated over a period of years. A judge later ordered a document listing the comments to be unsealed.² Reporting by the Salt Lake Tribune cited examples including “I’ve accidentally hired 2 prostitutes” and “Oh my gosh. I just grabbed his little penis. That felt really unnatural.” The largest share of the notes was attributed to Jordon Sharp, the vice president of marketing and communications.³

Who Filed the Lawsuit

The suit was filed on November 7, 2024, as case number 4:24-cv-00091-DN-PK. The three plaintiffs all held compliance roles that made them responsible for enforcing the laws the complaint says the university violated:

Rebecca “Becky” Broadbent, general counsel and the university’s most senior female administrator.
Jared Rasband, senior associate general counsel.
Hazel Sainsbury, director of equity compliance and Title IX coordinator. Sainsbury is Black, and the complaint includes racial discrimination claims tied to how administrators treated her.⁴

The lawsuit names more than 20 individual defendants along with Utah Tech University, the Utah Board of Higher Education, the Utah System of Higher Education, and the Office of the Commissioner of Higher Education. The central figure among them is Richard “Biff” Williams, Utah Tech’s president from 2014 until he resigned in January 2024.

How Leadership Allegedly Responded

The plaintiffs say that when they launched a mandated Title IX investigation into the notes in 2021, Williams and other administrators minimized the misconduct, required the plaintiffs to keep working alongside the offending marketing team, and questioned their professionalism and motives.⁵

The complaint also describes an incident on November 8, 2023, in which Williams allegedly arranged two eggplants and what the lawsuit calls a “record-breaking zucchini” into a display resembling male genitalia and left it on the porch of Sharp, who was recovering from surgery. Williams included a note attributing the display to Broadbent, Rasband, and Sainsbury, using their names without their knowledge. The note referred to the arrangement as a “zuweenie.”⁶ When Sharp contacted Williams that night, Williams denied involvement. Five days later, when Broadbent reported the incident directly to him, he still did not disclose that he was behind it, instead telling her the plaintiffs were “loved” and “part of the family.” Photos of the display and the note bearing the plaintiffs’ names were shared among Sharp, other administrators, and marketing staff, the complaint alleges.

After Williams’s role in the display came to light internally, the university negotiated a separation agreement that let him resign in January 2024. The plaintiffs’ own formal grievances were dismissed around the same time, and when they pushed back, a counsel for the Utah Board of Higher Education said she had “misspoken” about the basis for dismissing them. The plaintiffs call the subsequent grievance processes, which were outsourced, “shams.”⁴

Broadbent was placed on involuntary administrative leave, barred from campus without written permission, and escorted off-site after surrendering her university-issued laptop, ID, keys, and purchasing card. She was excluded from professional events, and her requests to return went unanswered. On May 8, 2025, seven days after Shane Smeed was installed as Utah Tech’s new president, Broadbent and Rasband were terminated. They have since filed a separate lawsuit alleging the firings were retaliatory.⁷

What the Lawsuit Claims

The complaint lists 14 causes of action under federal and state law. The federal claims include sex discrimination and retaliation under Title IX, and discrimination based on sex, race, and national origin under Title VII, with related retaliation claims. The state-law claims include defamation, false light, breach of contract, tortious interference with contract, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and have requested a jury trial.⁵

Where the Case Stands

Shortly after the complaint was filed, Utah Tech moved to seal or strike parts of it, arguing the materials were protected by attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, and internal confidentiality policies. On February 4, 2025, Judge David Nuffer denied the university’s emergency motion for a temporary restraining order. The court found the university had failed to overcome the presumption that court records are public and had failed to show the claimed privileges applied. The ruling pointed to Utah’s Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6(b)(5), which allows lawyers to disclose confidential information to the extent necessary to establish a claim in a dispute with their client.⁸

On July 18, 2025, Utah Tech filed a motion to dismiss, arguing it has “broad government immunity.” That was the first formal response on the merits from the university and the named defendants.⁹ On April 30, 2026, Judge Nuffer granted the plaintiffs’ motion to file a second amended complaint. Because the amended complaint supersedes the earlier version, all pending motions to dismiss were terminated as moot, and the defendants will need to respond to the new pleading. A scheduling order has not yet been issued, and no rulings have been made on the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims or on the conduct of any individual named in the case.¹

Separate from the lawsuit, Utah Tech commissioned an outside team to investigate Williams’s conduct. That review concluded on May 19, 2025, with what the university described as “no sustained findings.” Investigators determined that the vegetable display did not constitute sexual harassment and did not violate university policy.¹⁰ When the plaintiffs sought records from the investigation, the Utah State Records Committee ruled that because there were no findings of a violation, the university was not required to release the report under state law.¹¹ Williams has acknowledged responsibility for the display and said he now recognizes it “was not appropriate.” That internal finding is distinct from the federal case, which has not been decided.

Where the Key Figures Are Now

Williams became president of Missouri State University in July 2024, roughly four months before the Utah lawsuit was filed. After the complaint drew attention to his new role, he emailed the Missouri State community saying, “I regret my lapse in judgment, and I accept this as a learning moment.” The Missouri State Board of Governors held four closed sessions and, on November 22, 2024, issued a unanimous statement of continued confidence in him; board members said their pre-hire background checks had not turned up the Utah Tech incident.¹² The Missouri State Faculty Senate passed a vote of no confidence, citing the “high profile nature of his breach in ethical leadership.” Williams remains in the Missouri State presidency as of the most recent reporting.¹³

Jordon Sharp, the marketing vice president whose department kept the Post-it notes, announced his departure from Utah Tech on August 4, 2025, with a last day of August 8. He said his resignation was unrelated to the lawsuit, that his new position at a Salt Lake City marketing firm had been in the works for over a year, and that he had been cleared of wrongdoing regarding the Post-it note incident.¹⁴ At Utah Tech itself, Shane Smeed was installed as the university’s 19th president on May 1, 2025. He was not at the university during the events described in the complaint, but his first weeks in office included the terminations of Broadbent and Rasband that are now the subject of their follow-up suit.⁷

1
Midpage. Broadbent v. Williams, Memorandum Decision and Order
2
Salt Lake Tribune. Utah Tech Employees Allegedly Displayed Crude Post-it Notes
3
Salt Lake Tribune. Utah Tech University VP Jordon Sharp Stepping Down
4
GovInfo. Broadbent v. Williams, Case No. 4:24-cv-00091-DN-PK
5
Springfield Business Journal. MSU President at Center of Utah Lawsuit Alleging Discrimination, Retaliation at Utah Tech
6
ABC4. Broadbent v. Williams Complaint
7
Salt Lake Tribune. New Utah Tech President Accused of Retaliatory Terminations
8
GovInfo. Broadbent v. Williams, Case No. 4:24-cv-00091-DN-PK – Memorandum Decision and Order
9
Salt Lake Tribune. Utah Tech Says It Has Immunity From Lawsuit
10
Salt Lake Tribune. Utah Tech Investigation Finds No Sustained Findings Against Former President
11
St. George News. Utah Tech Investigation Ends With No Sustained Findings Against Former President
12
KSMU. Lawsuit Continues Against Missouri State President
13
Springfield News-Leader. Utah Tech Investigation Finds No Harassment by Missouri State President Biff Williams
14
KJZZ. Utah Tech Admin Resigns, Claims Departure Unrelated to Ongoing Federal Lawsuit