Content is Protected
She sat in her windowless office, the Chicago rain drumming against the glass. On her screen, a blank PDF template stared back. File name: Meeks_v_University_Prima_Facie.pdf.
“Yes, sir.”
“Ms. Kostas,” he said, “this is a threshold document. You know that, right?” prima facie pdf
A side-by-side comparison of the deputy’s accusation table and Evelyn’s raw RT-PCR cycles. The deputy claimed the threshold cycles had been “adjusted.” Anya highlighted the lab’s standard operating procedure, which required normalization—a step the deputy had conveniently omitted. She sat in her windowless office, the Chicago
“Then you know I’m not deciding who’s guilty. Just whether your client has a story worth hearing.” “Yes, sir
Outside, the rain stopped. Somewhere in the building, Evelyn Meeks was crying with relief. And Anya Kostas, for the first time in three days, smiled at a PDF.
Anya paused. Prima facie didn’t need the smoking gun. It needed the first sight of the gun. She added one more page: a simple legal summary. To establish a prima facie case of research misconduct, the complainant must show: (1) the respondent engaged in fabrication, (2) the fabrication was material to the grant application, and (3) the complainant suffered a direct injury. Here, Dr. Meeks presents evidence that the disputed data were entered without her knowledge, that her absence is documented, and that the accuser had motive and opportunity. A reasonable factfinder could conclude misconduct occurred—not by Dr. Meeks, but by her deputy. She saved the PDF. Twenty-eight pages, clean, brutal, and lean. No emotional pleas. No attacks on character. Just the minimum threshold to cross.