AACC’s Settlement with Business Professor Masks More than a Year of False Accusations and Policy Violations

Article by Salvador Dos Santos

February 8, 2026

Anne Arundel Community College spent more than a year pursuing disciplinary action against a former business professor based on accusations that ultimately collapsed under scrutiny – then paid to make the problem disappear.

That is the unavoidable conclusion drawn from court filings, investigative outcomes, and a settlement agreement that ended Robert (“Reb”) Beatty’s lawsuit against the college without a trial, without transparency, and without accountability.

Beatty, a former business professor at AACC, filed suit on March 7, 2025, in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, naming the college and multiple individuals as defendants and demanding a jury trial.  The case, C-02-CV-25-000728, arose after the college suspended him based on allegations that, after extensive investigation, were formally rejected.

Suspended First. Investigated Later. Cleared in the End.

From the outset, the college acted decisively—and prematurely.

Evidence developed during the investigation showed that AACC relied on false or unsupported accusations to justify Reb Beatty’s initial suspension. Those accusations, that Beatty was involved in a romantic relationship with a student and were serious enough to derail a career, were later found not to be substantiated by the facts.

As the investigation unfolded, the college faced a growing problem: the evidence did not support its original narrative.  Documentation reviewed and interviews with several sources revealed a consensual relationship between the individual and Beatty, which clearly began after the semester had ended and the individual was no longer a student.  Furthermore, evidence unambiguously demonstrated that the female student had repeatedly pursued and constantly flirted with Beatty, who also served as the former chair of the Business Administration department at AACC.

Instead of correcting course, investigative records show that AACC repeatedly violated its own policies and procedures, deviations that occurred not once, but multiple times over the course of the process. Those violations, Beatty argued – and documentation supports – were aimed at keeping the college positioned to terminate him regardless of what the evidence ultimately showed. 

After an investigation spanning more than a year, the final determination was clear: Beatty was found not responsible for the accusations that led to his suspension.

At that point, a fair process would have ended with remediation and accountability for those who initiated and sustained an unfounded case.  That did not happen.

Despite the “not responsible” finding, Anne Arundel Community College did not reinstate Beatty. It did not publicly acknowledge that its suspension was based on flawed accusations.  Instead, the college shifted strategy—from discipline to damage control.  During the process, Beatty sued.

Faced with litigation that threatened to expose its internal decision-making, AACC chose not to defend its actions before a jury. Instead, it entered into a settlement agreement requiring Beatty to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice, permanently barring judicial review of the college’s conduct.

A source from AACC who was close to the investigation and settlement negotiations, and who wished to remain anonymous because of confidentially agreements and the potential of repercussions, provided our news team with some details regarding the settlement.  The agreement provides Beatty with a financial settlement and additional concessions that speak volumes about the strength of his claims.

The settlement contains the standard “no admission of liability” language—but the terms themselves tell a different story. Institutions do not pay significant settlements, offer benefits beyond policy, and agree to digital erasure when their actions are sound.  They do so when exposure is riskier than resolution.

Beatty: “The Settlement Speaks for Itself”

Beatty, citing confidentiality, declined to disclose or comment on the specific financial terms of the settlement. However, he said he was satisfied with the outcome, describing the resolution as vindication after months of uncertainty and reputational harm.  Beatty relayed that he officially resigned from AACC at the end of the Fall 2025 semester and indicated that an additional lawsuit against the college had been imminent, had settlement not occurred.

According to Beatty, the settlement itself confirms what the investigation ultimately found—that the accusations against him were unfounded and that the college’s actions were unjustified.

He stated that the agreement “proves I was in the right all along,” and added that he is focused on moving forward. Beatty said he simply wishes to put the ordeal behind him and explained how the circumstances of the past sixteen months were incredibly detrimental to his physical and mental well-being.

Beatty stated, “Although I am extremely disappointed in AACC’s accuse first and ask questions later approach to this pseudo soap opera scenario, I resign with my head held high, favorable settlement in tow, and confident of the positive impact that I have made on so many students in the fifteen years that I taught at the college”.

Shameful Policy Violations

Documentation reviewed demonstrates a repetitive and profound disregard for stated college policy in this matter.  During the investigation, it was uncovered that the third-party investigator hired by AACC and the advisor for the former female student were personal friends, and had been partners at the same law firm in Chicago, llinois, before moving to the same law firm in Dallas, Texas, within a month of each other.  They had worked together for more than ten years and had conducted numerous seminars together.  AACC policy states that “any individual involved in the administration of the resolution process… may neither have nor demonstrate a conflict of interest or bias for a party generally, or for a specific [party]”.  This blatant conflict of interest was not disclosed by the college and was only discovered through Beatty’s investigative work.

Perhaps even more egregious was the continuation of this process when AACC policy specifically demanded dismissal.  According to written policy, dismissal of the allegations was MANDATORY when – at the time a complaint was filed – the individual making the complaint was “not participating in or attempting to participate in the educational program or activity of the College”.  Despite the former female student NOT wishing to pursue the complaint AND despite a sworn affidavit, provided to AACC, that at the time the complaint was filed, she was not participating in or attempting to participate a college activity or program, AACC proceeded regardless with the process.

A Public Institution, Operating in Private

The lawsuit named multiple individual defendants as well as Anne Arundel Community College itself.  President Dawn Lindsay was designated for service on behalf of the institution.  Yet at no point has the college publicly explained:

• Why false accusations were treated as credible enough to suspend a professor?
• Why policy violations were tolerated throughout more than a year-long investigation?
• Or why settlement was preferable to transparency?

For a public college funded by taxpayers and students, the silence is striking.

With the case dismissed and the settlement finalized, the public may never see the full evidentiary record. But what is already known raises a troubling question that remains unanswered: What protection does due process really offer at Anne Arundel Community College?