University of Michigan President Grasso Should Come Clean On Dr. St. Claire’s NDA

[Black Star News Editorial]

Accountability, truth and justice cannot be applied selectively.

This is the third in a series of editorials asking University of Michigan President Domenico Grasso why the university executed a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) with anesthesiologist Dr. Paul Gregory St. Claire when he was forced to resign on Feb. 28, 2024, considering his multiple workplace disciplinary actions and the serious allegations made by his ex-wife, Haitian-born Cassandra Fameux.

Ms. Fameux alleges that Dr. St. Claire accessed and altered her medical records without authorization and, together with psychiatrist Dr. Dominic Barberio, drugged her with antipsychotic medications for nine years at University of Michigan Health Sparrow. Four psychiatrists later concluded that Ms. Fameux was neither schizophrenic nor bipolar. One of them, Dr. Rita Aouad, testified that she suffered from severe PTSD resulting from years of an abusive marriage to Dr. St. Claire.

President Grasso. Photo: University of Michigan.

On April 10, 2025, following a six-month investigation, the Meridian Township Police Department in Okemos, Michigan, recommended that Dr. St. Claire be criminally prosecuted for domestic assault against Ms. Fameux. Ingham County Prosecutor John Dewane declined to prosecute.

Ms. Fameux told police that Dr. St. Claire’s alleged motive was to get her to sign an agreement transferring 100% of their marital assets—millions of dollars and two homes—to him while she was allegedly under the influence of the drugs. She signed the Judgment of Separate Maintenance on Feb. 20, 2018.

Black Star News subsequently reported that the agreement was void because the court never appointed a Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) for Ms. Fameux as required by Michigan law, and that Dr. St. Claire, his divorce attorney Jessica Larson and Judge Carol N. Koenig who presided over the divorce apparently fabricated the existence of a GAL to uphold the agreement. Black Star News also reported the matter to local, state, national law enforcement, and to the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission. 

Ms. Fameux also reported to police that the alleged drugging caused serious injuries, including a pituitary brain tumor, a heart condition requiring a loop monitor, diabetes and infertility.

Given these allegations and the subsequent police recommendation, Black Star News asked what the University of Michigan might have been shielding by executing an NDA with Dr. St. Claire.

A subsequent editorial examined the university’s multiple warnings and disciplinary actions against Dr. St. Claire following substantiated allegations of sexual harassment involving a patient and co-workers. Apparently, a nurse who complained of sexual harassment by Dr. St. Claire was allegedly terminated.

Dr. St. Claire. Photo: Family.

Dr. St. Claire denied during a Sept. 25, 2024 divorce deposition that he grabbed the nurse’s rear end in an operating room. He said he intentionally “hit” another nurse’s hand and that it was that hand that touched the nurse. He described the incident as something he “thought was funny.”

The University of Michigan has also recently commissioned an outside law firm to investigate its football program. That raises another obvious question: What about all the other serious allegations involving Dr. St. Claire? Were they investigated with the same determination? If not, why not?

There is no basis to claim that the football investigation was intended to deflect attention from Dr. St. Claire. But if the university wants to avoid that perception, it should provide answers about how it handled these other allegations.

Otherwise, there is a foul odor of hypocrisy when accountability appears to be applied selectively.

And now there is an especially important question for President Grasso: Is the NDA with Dr. St. Claire still valid?

Dr. St. Claire himself discussed his termination during his divorce deposition.

Dr. St. Claire responding on Sept. 25, 2024 to questions about his termination.

On Sept. 25, 2024 when attorney Timothy Young asked whether he was terminated because of Ms. Fameux’s complaint that he accessed her medical records, Dr. St. Claire responded that it was because of her “false allegations” that he did not have permission and the publicity she generated.

When asked whether he had authorization to access the records, he responded: “I had her verbal authorization…”

So if Dr. St. Claire has already discussed the circumstances surrounding his termination under oath, what exactly does the NDA still prevent the University of Michigan from disclosing?

Was accessing Ms. Fameux’s medical records the only reason for his termination? Were there other reasons? And if so, why should the university community and the public remain in the dark?

Dr. St. Claire later sued Black Star News and publisher and investigative reporter Milton Allimadi for defamation. He subsequently obtained a default and money judgment after the defendants’ interrogatory responses were submitted 48 hours late following the discovery of deleted emails that the defendants believe were critical to the case. The alleged hacking was reported to the FBI and New York Police Department.

Allimadi has filed a motion seeking to set aside the default and have a jury hear the merits of the defamation case, including evidence from Dr. St. Claire’s own divorce deposition and other court, hospital and police records.

But the University of Michigan has a separate responsibility. President Grasso should come clean about the NDA.

If there is a legal reason it remains confidential, explain it. If Dr. St. Claire’s own sworn disclosures mean the NDA can no longer prevent disclosure, say so. And if other disciplinary findings contributed to his departure, the university should explain what it can lawfully disclose.

The University of Michigan is also entitled to be held accountable for how it handles serious allegations involving its employees.

The university cannot demand accountability from others while refusing to explain its own actions.

Accountability cannot be selective. Neither can transparency.