What the Jherrard Hardeman Lawsuit Reveals About Rochester Philharmonic & University of Rochester
These views expressed are my own and do not represent any organizations that I am affiliated with.
The orchestra industry is in the middle of a long-overdue reckoning with misconduct, and I support that reckoning without reservation. Institutions should take complaints seriously, investigate them fairly, document what they find, and act on the results. Process protects people who come forward. It also protects people who are accused, whether the accusation turns out to be true or false. When process is skipped, nobody gets closer to the truth. What's left instead is an unresolved allegation that hardens into rumor, with institutional silence doing the work of confirmation.
I'm not writing about Jherrard Hardeman because I believe he's an example of misconduct being addressed. I'm writing about him because his case is an example of what happens when process is absent.
Hardeman, the former Assistant Conductor of the Rochester Philharmonic Orchestra, is suing the RPO and the University of Rochester. His complaint alleges that he was pushed out of his roles and subsequently subjected to false statements accusing him of inappropriate conduct involving minors and students. The defendants deny wrongdoing, and their position will ultimately be tested through the legal process.
I am not in a position to say what did or did not happen between Hardeman and anyone else, and this article does not attempt to resolve those allegations one way or the other. My concern is narrower than that, and doesn't depend on which side turns out to be right: it's about process.
Reading from the perspective of someone with an HR background, the documents filed in this case describe a separation process that raises serious questions about how an institution handles performance concerns, allegations of misconduct, employment records, and communication with its community....questions worth asking regardless of how the underlying allegations are ultimately resolved.
This is not the first time the University of Rochester has been scrutinized in the classical music industry for lacking a clear process in similar matters.
What the Contract Required
Hardeman's three-season renewal agreement, filed with the court, covered September 2024 through August 2027.
The agreement provided a mechanism for early termination for "good cause." Under the contract, the Board Chair, with approval from the Executive Committee, could terminate Hardeman for good cause. The agreement defined good cause in terms of specified failures to perform: failing to perform at least 70 percent of total concerts, or persistently failing or being unable to perform his duties.
The second ground came with an important procedural condition. Hardeman was to receive at least 30 days' written notice of the failure and an opportunity during that period to correct it.
That is a standard, sensible employment provision. It tells both sides what the process is supposed to look like when an employer believes an employee's performance is not meeting expectations.
According to Hardeman's complaint, that is not what ultimately happened.
A Performance Plan Cut Short
On June 3, 2025, RPO leadership gave Hardeman a written performance document titled "Steps to Improve an Employee's Performance." It cited feedback from a musician survey and staff and performance concerns.
The document identified five areas requiring improvement: punctuality, rehearsals, communication, program delivery, and script delivery. It required specific changes, including arriving 30 minutes before scheduled events, providing rehearsal plans, responding promptly to communications, meeting program deadlines, and submitting scripts according to specified timelines.
The document also stated that the plan would remain in effect through December 7, 2025, and warned that immediate and sustained improvement was required, with further action, including termination possible.
There is an important detail here: the performance document itself concerns performance. It does not, on its face, allege sexual misconduct or inappropriate conduct with students or minors.
Nine weeks into that six-month performance period, on August 8, the RPO's CEO and outside counsel met with Hardeman and asked him to resign.
According to the complaint, Hardeman was not presented with written charges or a documented basis for a for-cause termination at that meeting. A subsequent letter from counsel stated that the RPO believed he had made "insufficient progress" and characterized resignation as "a respectful and practical path forward."
Hardeman later told local reporters that, if the orchestra believed his work warranted termination, it could simply have fired him.
That observation gets to the heart of the contractual issue. If the orchestra was addressing performance, the agreement established a process for doing so. If the orchestra wanted a negotiated departure instead, that was a different process -- one requiring an agreement between the parties.
The Non-Resignation
A week after the August 8 meeting, the RPO sent Hardeman a draft resignation and severance agreement.
The proposed agreement contemplated salary through December 2025 in exchange for, among other things, Hardeman's resignation, a broad release of claims, confidentiality, non-disparagement obligations, and an agreement not to seek future employment with the RPO.
Hardeman did not sign it.
On August 27, an internal RPO communication stated that Hardeman was "no longer associated" with the orchestra and that his duties were being reassigned. The message said the RPO could not comment on confidential employment matters.
Two days later, counsel wrote to Hardeman that "we had been told that you had resigned." The letter said he was relieved of all future duties, "in part, because we had no communication with you since August 8."
The complaint also includes a payroll record listing the reason for the employment change as "Resigned."
From an HR standpoint, this is one of the most consequential details in the case.
A resignation is an employee's decision. It is not ordinarily something an employer can establish simply because someone else told the employer that the employee resigned, particularly after the employee declined to sign a proposed resignation agreement.
If the orchestra intended to terminate Hardeman, the contract established a procedure for doing so. If it intended to negotiate a separation, that required agreement between the parties.
Those are distinct things.
An employment record describing someone as having resigned when that person says he did not resign is therefore not a minor administrative detail. It goes directly to the accuracy of the employment record and to how a subsequent departure may be understood by anyone who relies on that record.
The Detail That Raises a Question
One of the more revealing documents attached to the complaint is an exhibit associated with the proposed separation agreement. It outlines work Hardeman would continue to perform before his departure.
That work included leading a Rochester Philharmonic Youth Orchestra retreat through September 28, 2025, as well as conducting a November 8 concert and its rehearsals.
That creates an obvious question.
If, by mid-August, the orchestra believed Hardeman posed a safety risk to young musicians, why would the proposed separation arrangement contemplate his continued work with the youth orchestra for weeks afterward?
On the other hand, if the orchestra did not regard him as a safety risk at that point, how should the allegations that emerged later be understood?
The documents do not answer those questions. It would be a mistake to turn them into a definitive conclusion about what the orchestra knew or believed. But the inconsistency is significant enough to deserve explanation.
A careful misconduct process should be internally coherent. The employment decision, the safety assessment, the duties assigned to the employee, and the communications surrounding the departure should make sense together.
Silence Is Also a Statement
When a youth orchestra director disappears suddenly, without an explanation or farewell, people fill the silence themselves.
In today's classical-music environment, many people will assume the worst. Institutions know that. That is why communication surrounding a departure (particularly one involving someone who works with young musicians) needs to be handled fairly, accurately, and with transparency.
According to Hardeman's complaint, the silence was quickly filled.
The complaint alleges that, beginning in September 2025, statements were made to musicians, parents, school officials, university personnel, prospective employers, and others suggesting that Hardeman had been fired or removed because of inappropriate conduct involving minors or students.
Hardeman denies those allegations. His complaint states that he "has never engaged in sexual contact, inappropriate relations, or improper communications with any minor or minor student."
Those allegations have not been adjudicated. The lawsuit itself is a pleading, not a finding that the alleged statements were made or that the underlying accusations were true or false.
But there is still an important institutional question.
When an organization chooses not to explain a departure, it does not necessarily prevent a story from developing. It can leave a vacuum in which other people construct the explanation themselves. If an inaccurate explanation then circulates, the absence of an official account can make it harder to correct.
That is why accurate departure communication is not merely a public-relations concern. It is part of responsible personnel management.
Ban First...Questions Later
The university side of the story raises a different but related question about process.
On September 10, 2025, University of Rochester Public Safety issued Hardeman an immediate ban from university property, including Eastman School of Music facilities where he had worked.
According to the complaint, the notice referenced a report filed on July 17. Hardeman says he had not previously been informed of the report and had never received a copy.
He was questioned a week after the ban. The complaint says he denied the allegations presented to him, including questions about inappropriate relationships and whether he had sexual contact with a 16-year-old or had used dating applications in relation to students.
On September 29, he submitted a written response and asked that the ban be lifted. The university acknowledged his response on November 3 and, according to the complaint, said it would respond "as soon as reasonably possible."
When Hardeman filed his lawsuit in May 2026, he alleged that the restriction remained in place.
There is an important distinction here. Universities should be able to act quickly when they receive a report involving the safety of minors or students. Interim protective measures can be appropriate, even before an investigation is complete.
But an interim measure should not become a substitute for a process.
A fair system should provide the person affected with notice of the allegations, an opportunity to respond, a meaningful investigative process, and some reasonable mechanism for review. The precise procedures may differ depending on the circumstances and the institution's policies. What matters is that an emergency measure does not quietly become a permanent one simply because the underlying question remains unresolved.
A process that begins with exclusion but does not clearly move toward resolution serves neither side well.
A person who reports possible misconduct deserves to know that the institution took the report seriously and investigated it. A person accused of misconduct deserves to know what is being alleged and to have a the opportunity to respond.
Those interests are not in conflict.
Unresolved Accusations = Blacklisted
The consequences described in the complaint extend beyond the RPO and the University of Rochester.
In November 2025, the Rochester City School District withdrew an invitation for Hardeman to conduct its high-school Citywide Orchestra, citing concerns and its commitment to maintaining a "safe and supportive environment."
In March 2026, the Colburn School invited Hardeman to participate in the final, in-person stage of its selection process for a youth-orchestra directorship. According to documents attached to the complaint, the school subsequently withdrew that invitation shortly before the scheduled conducting portion of the process. The email to Hardeman said the committee could "no longer consider" his application but did not provide a reason.
The complaint also includes a written statement from a ROC music colleague describing having heard a misconduct rumor from stage crew at Eastman Theatre and defending Hardeman against it.
Again, none of the documents or news reports establishes why an outside organization made a particular employment decision. A hiring committee may consider many factors, and the reasons for a decision may not be disclosed.
But the sequence illustrates a larger problem with unresolved allegations: once a rumor enters professional networks, its effects can travel far beyond the institution where the original dispute began.
Hardeman also alleges that the conflict at the RPO had an earlier dimension involving repertoire.
He says he received pushback beginning in August 2023 over programming works by women, Asian composers, and Black composers. According to his account, roughly 30 percent of the repertoire he initially selected reflected those composers and, after complaints, that proportion fell to approximately 13 percent in his second year. He alleges that resistance nevertheless continued.
That claim is also disputed and will have to be evaluated through the legal process. It should not be treated as an established explanation for the events that followed.
But it is relevant to the broader question Hardeman's case raises: when an employee and an institution disagree about performance, artistic choices, or workplace conduct, how does an organization distinguish between those disputes?
The answer should be evidence and process, not whichever narrative becomes dominant afterward.
What A Fair Process Looks Like
None of this requires anyone to take Hardeman's word over the institutions' word, nor the institutions' word over Hardeman's. It requires asking a more basic question: What should a responsible employer do when it has concerns about an employee?
It puts those concerns in writing.
It tells the employee what the concerns are.
It gives the employee an opportunity to respond.
When allegations of misconduct arise, it conducts an appropriate investigation and documents what it finds.
It makes decisions proportionate to the evidence and the circumstances.
It follows its own contracts and policies.
It keeps accurate personnel records.
And when someone leaves, it communicates enough truthfully with integrity and credibiility.
These steps are not obstacles to accountability. They are how accountability becomes credible.
An organization that follows a clear process can explain what it knew, what it investigated, what it found, and why it acted. An organization that skips those steps may still have had legitimate reasons for its decision, but it becomes much harder to demonstrate afterward that the decision was based on evidence rather than impressions, interpersonal conflict, discomfort, or disagreement.
That distinction matters enormously in an industry where reputations travel quickly and where professional opportunities are often built on informal networks.
Believing People and Following A Process Aren't Opposites
I believe people who come forward about misconduct, and I want institutions to act when they receive credible reports of harm. That is exactly why I care about process.
The goal of process is not to create a higher burden for people reporting misconduct (at least not in institutions that actually care....which is sadly rare...but one can hope). It is to create a system in which their reports can be taken seriously, investigated properly, and acted upon with confidence. It also protects people who are accused. Those two principles are not opposites. In fact, they depend on each other.
Every time an organization removes someone through pressure, ambiguity, or silence instead of a documented process, it weakens confidence in the system that people reporting real harm depend on. If an institution wants its misconduct procedures to be trusted, people need to believe that allegations will be taken seriously and that conclusions will be based on something more substantial than rumor.
For a great example of a union that did a stellar thorough process while handling a complex case, look no further than the Calgary Musicians Association 547 of the AFM Canada, and the Alberta Labor Relations Board: https://katherineneedlemanoboist.substack.com/p/from-alberta-labour-relations-board Can also read the same post here: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1DUVyKCNqr/
Another Article on the matter: Calgary Herald Article Story of My Involvement in the Calgary Philhormonic Investigation (Yes, it's true...and I was part of an HR department at the time too).
The RPO has said it looks forward to a full and fair review of the facts. The legal process will provide an opportunity for that review.
But the documents in this case raise a question that extends beyond Jherrard Hardeman or the Rochester Philharmonic Orchestra:
What does an institution owe everyone involved when a serious allegation is made?
The answer cannot simply be action. It has to be process.
Notice.....Investigation.....Documentation.....An opportunity to respond.....Accurate records.....Proportionate decisions.
AND, when the process is complete, communication that is truthful enough and transparent that it doesn't leave room for ambiguity.
Those things do not weaken accountability, they are what make accountability credible.
References
Primary source
Hardeman v. Rochester Philharmonic Orchestra, Inc. and University of Rochester, Index No. E2026012598, Supreme Court of the State of New York, Monroe County. Summons and Verified Complaint, filed May 19, 2026. (Court filing found on Reddit: Here)
News coverage
Marsenburg, Theresa. "Former RPO conductor says music choices led to removal, lawsuit." RochesterFirst / WROC, September 14, 2026.
Salazar, Francisco. "Jherrard Hardeman Sues Rochester Philharmonic & University of Rochester for Breach of Contract & Defamation." OperaWire, September 19, 2026.
Shulze, Talia. "Former Rochester Philharmonic Assistant Conductor Jherrard Hardeman Files Suit Over Dismissal." Symphony (League of American Orchestras), September 17, 2026 (reprinting Theresa Marsenburg's RochesterFirst reporting).
(c) Katie A. Berglof, 2026
