UA Police captain decided Title IX cases while being investigated for sexually explicit recording

A University of Akron police supervisor was appointed to decide the outcomes of sex-based discrimination cases on campus, despite a reputation inside the police department for telling personal sex stories at work. This was also long after a lieutenant sought to prevent him from working in student dorms because of those stories, according to records obtained by Signal Akron.

The university continued to pay Captain Darrell Claytor to serve as a Title IX hearing officer while he was the subject of a Title IX complaint over a sexually explicit recording of his comments about female colleagues that was disclosed to the office last year. Claytor filed his own Title IX complaint in response that was meant to punish the female officer who reported him, claiming she “or someone in her corner” was talking about the recording to ruin his reputation. 

The investigation into Claytor’s conduct stemmed from the discovery early last year by two university police officers of body-worn camera footage that shows Claytor alongside another officer, Kevin Pierson. 

The video records the two now-former officers inside the UAPD office during their shift as they applied labels to new body-worn cameras, went through the UAPD roster and talked about which female officers they wanted to have sex with. They refer to women recruits as “bitches” and a current female officer as a “whore” with “nothing to lose,” among other comments.

As they spoke, they didn’t realize one of the new cameras was rolling. A month later, two officers discovered the footage and reported it to supervisors. One filed a Title IX complaint with the university soon after, asking that Claytor be removed from hiring committees and as a TItle IX hearing officer.

It was a “private conversation between two friends” and “guy talk,” and the female officer who reported the video should be disciplined, Claytor wrote as he explained his conduct in the Title IX investigation. In a counterclaim against her, he wrote that the female officer had a “malicious intent to ruin the department’s reputation, especially mine,” because people outside the department and Title IX office learned of the video’s existence.

The outside attorney hired to oversee the investigation, Erin Butcher, explained it differently. “Claytor, as a captain, at his publicly-funded office and at work while performing work duties, engaged explicit sexual degradation of female subordinates to another male subordinate.”

Despite investigation, university continues to give Claytor Title IX cases to hear

While the female officer’s Title IX sex discrimination complaint was open against the male UAPD captain over the video, and while Claytor’s subsequent Title IX complaint against her was open, the Title IX office continued to assign Claytor new cases to oversee. 

Claytor was one of four Title IX hearing officers at the time alongside UAPD Chief James Gilbride and two other university employees. The hearing officers act as de facto judges, overseeing hearings and deciding the outcomes of sex discrimination complaints and investigations. 

Billing records and Claytor’s timesheets document that, in the 12 months prior to the discovery of the body-camera video, he was a hearing officer in at least five Title IX cases. In the seven months after the Title IX complaint was filed against him, Claytor was appointed by the university to oversee four new cases. 

Other records show that the Title IX coordinator who both fielded the complaint against Claytor and continued to assign him to rule on other sex discrimination cases was Mike Strong, the university’s dean of students. Strong is not listed as a current member of the university’s Title IX team — the current Title IX coordinator, Jennifer Berg, was appointed to the position earlier this year after the investigation was complete and Claytor submitted his resignation.  

Strong did not respond to emails seeking comment for this story. When reached on his office phone late last week, Strong quickly hung up on a Signal Akron reporter who asked if he wanted to talk about Claytor’s involvement with Title IX.

The groundbreaking federal Title IX law was passed in 1972 to prohibit gender discrimination at educational institutions that receive federal funding. It requires that universities have: a grievance process for sex-based discrimination complaints, which can lead to an investigation with the opportunity for both sides to provide evidence and witnesses; a formal hearing and a ruling from someone appointed by the Title IX coordinator; and an appeal process.

A national education law expert who reviewed records obtained by Signal Akron indicated there are significant red flags in the Title IX practices of the University of Akron.

Kimberly Pacelli, a partner with the TNG consulting firm that operates the Association of Title IX Administrators, said it’s unheard of for university law enforcement officers, even those without open allegations against them, to be decision-makers in Title IX cases.

“Typically when you’re running civil rights processes, you’re taking an effort to separate and draw a distinction between criminal offenses and policy offenses,” said Pacelli. Direct law enforcement involvement in the Title IX process can chill the participation of survivors, who often don’t trust police responses.    

And regardless of a hearing officer’s full-time position, Pacelli said, there’s significant potential for a conflict of interest if a Title IX hearing officer is allowed to continue issuing rulings on sex discrimination cases while also under investigation for sex discrimination, as was the case with Claytor. 

“One, it raises questions about potential bias,” she said, “and then second, it’s just not a good look.”

Claytor loses Title IX complaint against him

Butcher, the attorney who heard Claytor’s case — the complaint against him from the female officer and Claytor’s complaint against her claiming retaliation and other violations — recommended the police captain be fired. 

Claytor’s conduct on the video, his arguments defending himself against sexual harassment claims and his pursuit of punishment for the female officer who reported him are “especially concerning” given his status with the police department and authority in Title IX cases, she wrote.

Claytor’s arguments against punishment for himself and for punishment of the female officer who reported him to the Title IX office included:

• His comments were private.
• The women mentioned weren’t offended.
• The female officer who reported him was vindictive and trying to ruin his reputation.
• The female officer violated human resources and department body camera rules because rumors of the video reached the policing community and Signal Akron last year.

His arguments relied on unproven allegations that the female officer broke rules that do not actually apply to the case, Butcher concluded.

Editor’s note: The following passage contains sexually explicit remarks that are derogatory toward women.

A culture that ‘laughed’ at sexuality

Records from the Title IX investigation obtained by Signal Akron document that, inside the UAPD, Claytor was known to tell stories on the job about his sexual encounters with women. His comments earned him a “50 Shades of Clay” nickname (referencing a similarly named book and movie series about a BDSM-based relationship) among department veterans. 

Defending himself in the Title IX complaint, Claytor wrote that his sex stories and nickname were part of a broader “UAPD culture that laughed at various things, including sexuality, 5-10 years ago” but that it was part of ”the outwardly sexual culture that was the UAPD … in the past.” 

The 23-minute video recorded on Jan. 29, 2025, years after the period Claytor references, documents Claytor and Pierson at work inside the UAPD building on College Street and Hill Street on campus, going through the department’s roster of officers one by one as they assign each a new body camera. 

One of those new cameras was activated as the pair oscillated between innocuous comments about the task and explicit comments about the bodies of certain female officers whom they want to have sex with, whom they think would have sex with them, their desires for female police recruits they find physically attractive and other comments. 

“I would,” Pierson said as the name of a young female officer came up while they attached her ID number to a new camera.

“Oh fuck yeah, she’s fine as a motherfucker,” Claytor said, as he proceeds to discuss her body. 

Minutes later, the name of another young female officer, known for posting pictures of herself on her social media accounts, came up. 

“I would – she got a body on her,” Claytor said.

“She’s a whore,” Pierson said. “Nothing to lose at this point.” 

“Exactly,” Claytor agreed. 

The two continue down the roster as they apply camera labels, talking about additional women officers they want to have sex with. 

“I’ll tell you who has a sneaky decent body,” Claytor said, saying another female officer’s name.

“Yeah, oh yeah, hands down,” Pierson responded, shifting into a whisper: “I’m pretty sure she’d fuck your brains out.” 

“Oh God yeah,” Claytor said.

When the two saw that the ID number 69 was unassigned, they said the number — associated with a sex position — should go to a future female officer. 

“Whoever gets to be 69 is a badass,” Pierson said. 

“Yeah, I know!” Claytor, who was also on a hiring committee and oversaw recruits, responded laughing. “Hopefully it’s gotta be a chick. … Officer 69, that is a badass number.”

“Fucking awesome,” Pierson said. “Fucking awesome.”

“Gotta be some hot-ass bitch,” Claytor said. “‘What’s your badge number?’ ‘69!’”

The footage sat dormant for four weeks until a male UAPD officer who was issued that camera began reviewing and tagging footage and realized there was a video recorded in the camera that was not related to his cases, the Title IX report says. 

The female officer who eventually filed the Title IX complaint was in the same room when the footage was discovered, and the two reported it to their supervisor.

Claytor situation is a ‘personnel matter’

The university’s spokesperson, Katy Brennan, did not answer any of Signal Akron’s specific questions about Claytor, the police department or the university’s Title IX practices because, she said in an email, it’s a “personnel matter.” 

Instead, she sent a short statement that the UAPD “reviews and addresses any concerns regarding inappropriate language and conduct within the department” and is “committed to setting clear expectations and maintaining a department grounded in professionalism, accountability and respect.” 

UAPD’s Gilbride and Hough did not respond to requests for comment. University lawyers also did not respond. 

Claytor’s attorney, Peter Pattakos, wrote in a statement to Signal Akron that Claytor was “terminated.” The outside attorney who said Claytor should be fired and the university officials who agreed with her, the statement said, “should be ashamed of their cold-blooded decision to terminate him based on inadvertent and ultimately forgivable mistake that was by no reasonable interpretation a terminable offense, especially given Claytor’s record.”

The video of Claytor and Pierson, Pattakos said, “inadvertently captured them engaging in locker-room talk about female co-workers of the type that any warm-blooded human might be presumed to engage in their private conversations, which happened to be discovered by a co-worker of Claytor’s who had an axe to grind against him for personal reasons related to his denial of her request for certain shift-assignments. This complaining co-worker was not a subject of Claytor’s comments in this inadvertently recorded conversation, and those who were mentioned in this conversation accepted Claytor’s apology and did not complain about him.”

The female officer who filed the Title IX complaint against Claytor did not respond to a request for comment. 

Pierson and Claytor move on to the Uniontown Police Department

After 12 years with UAPD, during which he graduated from the University of Akron School of Law and climbed the organization’s ladder, Claytor resigned in May after the Title IX investigation ruled against him. He later wrote in a job application that the UA human resources office “allowed me to resign in lieu of termination.”

He was soon hired as an officer by the Uniontown Police Department. Kevin Pierson, the other officer recorded with Claytor on the video, was hired by Uniontown as a captain, the second-highest rank in the department.

Claytor’s successful application to Uniontown listed UAPD Chief James Gilbride as a personal reference and included a recommendation letter with his “highest recommendation” from UAPD Assistant Chief Todd Hough. 

Hough, who declared shortly after the video was discovered that Claytor shouldn’t face disciplinary action beyond a two-hour workplace sensitivity training, said, “I wholeheartedly endorse Darrell Claytor as an asset to any law enforcement agency.” 

Claytor, as he lobbied for a job this summer with the Uniontown Police, told his now-employers that the university’s human resources department and Title IX personnel told him to initiate the complaint against the female officer who reported him. He claimed HR and the university’s lawyers didn’t believe he should be fired. 

Claytor disclosed his Title IX case to Uniontown in at least two letters during the hiring process. He said he accepted responsibility for his comments, “but there is a lot of background to the incident that I would like to explain to you,” and again placed blame on the female officer who reported him. 

Pierson, who records show threatened to sue the female officer who discovered the video, was the first of the pair to leave the department last fall. His application to be a captain with the Uniontown Police Department, obtained by Signal Akron, was aided by a long and positive recommendation letter in September 2025 from Claytor. 

“Kevin professionally handles every call for service. He treats everyone with respect, even when it’s not reciprocated,” Claytor wrote. He also lauded Pierson, now the second highest-ranking member of the police force in Uniontown, for being a great family man and officer. 

On July 9, UPD Chief Michael Batchick wrote an email to the Lake Township Board of Trustees, which signs off on hires for the Uniontown department, about “something that came to my attention” about Claytor, whom he wanted them to approve. 

He disclosed the Title IX findings to the board but said he believed the conversation, described as “locker room talk” by Claytor’s attorney, literally occurred “in the privacy of their locker room.” 

“After reviewing the investigative file and discussing the incident during the background process, I do not have concerns that this reflects a pattern of misconduct or poor character. While the conversation demonstrated poor judgment, it occurred in what they believed to be a private locker room setting, and in talking with him, he definitely learned from this experience. As a supervisor he should have shut the conversation down instead of engaging in it,” Batchick told the board.

“I continue to stand behind my recommendation for his full-time employment with our department. I did feel it was important that the Board was aware of this prior incident, so you have the same information I do as we move forward.”

Batchick told Signal Akron he has since learned the conversation didn’t happen in a locker room, but “the distinction regarding the location does not change the circumstances under which they were subsequently hire by our department. The background information which we received was that both officers received their discipline by UAPD in connection with this incident, and that disciplinary matter has been resolved.” 

The trustees unanimously voted to hire Claytor.