This website presents the untold story about David Voros, his career at the University of South Carolina, 

and the related lawsuits he faced. 

The three cases against Professor David Voros have been shaped by narratives that evolved over time, seemingly becoming more salacious as they moved to litigation and to media headlines. Yet when the claims are compared to contemporaneous documents—Facebook messages, university complaints, emails—and tested under oath in deposition, witness testimony, and academic records, a different story is told. 

Allegations made initially in lawsuits and to the press were repeatedly admitted by the allegers themselves to be “too specific.”  Other statements made by accusers were flatly unsupported in response to questioning under oath in deposition and are further contradicted by both testimony of individuals in authority as well as eye witnesses.

This document traces the arc of allegations made by three individuals: Allison Dunavant, Pamela Bowers, and Jaime Misenheimer. 

Each section shows how claims developed over time, how deposition testimony stripped them back, and how the public court record does not support the stories that circulated in the press.

The narrative below is divided into three units:

• Part I. Case Summaries 
• Part II: Allegations by Plaintiffs in Each Case, With Relevant Questions Posed To Them Under Oath In Deposition
• Part III: Documents

Part I. Case Summaries: 

1. Allison Dunavant: From Work Complaints to Harassment Allegations,

the ICA Program, and Early Complaints

In 2016, graduate student Allison Dunavant joined a "work-study" group at the International Center for the Arts (ICA) in Monte Castello di Vibio, Italy. Directed by Professor Voros, ICA agreed to cover room and board for Dunanvat and two of her fellow USC Art students in exchange for their assistance in preparing ICA facilities in Italy for the later arrival of a University of South Carolina's Study Aboard Program ("USC in Italy") in the following weeks. 

It is important to note that all three students were aware they were not part of any study abroad program, That they were not receiving any academic credits or any payment. All three were aware that they were participating in a work/study exchange of the sort that  is a familiar practice among arts centers operating both nationally and internationally.  Their work included cleaning, painting, and general reorganizing facilities to suit the needs of the upcoming group. 

During her stay, Dunavant’s contemporaneous Facebook messages (in which she is speaking to her mother every day - indeed, in some cases multiple times a day) paint a picture of her experience. Initially, she appeared happy. However, within days, her growing frustrations with her situation soon became apparent and soon she complained to her mother of:  long workdays and exhaustion, tasks “not in the job description,” and homesickness and interpersonal friction with other participants. What her messages do not contain is any mention of sexual harassment, inappropriate sexual advances, or misconduct by Voros. 

In general, her complaints were about her changing perceptions of conditions "on the ground," which went went from seemingly positive to negative, as interpersonal tensions between Allison and other workers developed.  It is important to recognize that her frustrations - expressed in her detailed summary of her experience during her brief time in Italy - were not about sexual harassment by Voros or anyone else. Further, witnesses confirmed that Dunavant was never deprived of food, never confined against her will, and she told the University of SC Ombusdsman, Dale Moore, clearly upon her return from the trip that she was not sexually harassed. 

EOP Filings and Absence of Harassment

When Dunavant returned to the U.S., she filed a complaint with USC’s Office of Equal Opportunity Programs (EOP), which included a six-page, single-spaced narrative throughly detailing her experience. That filing, expressed in her own words, made no mention of sexual harassment or assault and focused primarily on gender discriminations and based on the idea that she was discriminated against for not "working as hard" as the other two male students and about a heated verbal conflict during her stay. The USC EOP ultimately found no basis for gender discrimination.

In fact, later, in deposition during her lawsuit, Dunavant admitted the same:

Q: In your EOP complaint and your EOP appeal, did you ever state that you were sexually harassed by David Voros?
A: No.
Q: And, in fact, you told Dale Moore that there was no sexual harassment in Italy; correct?
A: Correct. Because my concern was with being left on the side of the road.
(Dunavant Dep. 146–47)

Her “primary concern,” she conceded, was logistical—not harassment.

Deposition Contradictions

Despite the absence of harassment claims in her contemporaneous filings, Dunavant’s later lawsuit contained detailed allegations of sexual misconduct.

Under oath, however, she repeatedly backed away from them.

The “Sexual Acts” Claim
Her lawsuit alleged she walked in on Voros and another student “engaging in sexual acts.” 

Under questioning in her sworn deposition, her own words tell a different story:

Q: Exhibit 1, page 5, paragraph 28 — it says, “While at Voros’ house for a meal, plaintiff walked in on Voros and AM engaging in sexual acts.” Is that correct?
A: I don’t necessarily agree with that’s what it was because I can’t specifically say what exactly was going on. I have my assumptions.
Q: So that statement is inaccurate?
A: I would say it’s a little bit too specific for what I actually saw. Because if you’re asking me to describe actual actions, I’m not going to be able to do that for you. Nor do I want to.
(Dunavant Dep. 143–44)

The “Sexual Advances” Claim
Dunavant's lawsuit also asserted Voros implied he wanted to engage in sexual acts with her. Again, she contradicted this under oath:

Q: Voros would make statements to plaintiff which implied he wanted to engage in sexual acts with her as well. Is that an accurate statement?
A: I think that that’s also a little specific. He was and would make flirty comments such as, like, “I don’t know how you still look that pretty after working hard all day,” or get, like, very close or, like, touch. But, again, I think that’s a little specific.
Q: So he never stated that he wanted to engage in any sexual act with you?
A: No.
Q: Did he imply that he wanted to engage in sexual acts with you?
A: No.
(Dunavant Dep. 144–45)

The “Quid Pro Quo” Claim
She later alleged Voros suggested benefits in exchange for sexual favors. Yet, again, deposition testimony contradicted this:

Q: Voros indicated that if plaintiff would engage in sexual acts with him, plaintiff would be able to go on shopping trips in Italy like AM, Alex Stasko. Correct?
A: He made some comments that if I was more like Alex, I wouldn’t have to do the type of work that the guys were doing. … Like when we were in Rome, they went on a shopping trip. I mean, I don’t know what else they did, but she came back with new clothes.
Q: Well, they went to IKEA to get supplies for ICA; correct?
A: Yes. And that was separate.
Q: Okay. But saying, you know, “if you were more like Alex,” that’s ambiguous.
A: Correct, it is. As is most of his language.
Q: But he never stated specifically that if you engaged in sexual acts with him you would be able to go on shopping trips in Italy?
A: Correct.
(Dunavant Dep. 145–46)

At most, Dunavant described ambiguous, “flirty” comments. She admitted there was no proposition, no quid pro quo, and no explicit sexual advance.

Settlement and Media Coverage

Despite these contradictions, Dunavant’s lawsuit drew national media attention, framed as a sexual misconduct case. Few outlets noted that she herself made the above denials  in deposition.

Ultimately, the university's insurance carrier paid $35,000 to settle and Voros was dismissed from the case "with prejudice." (Exs. 5–7).

Summary: How Dunavant’s narrative evolved:

• In real time: work complaints and logistical frustrations
• In initial filings: no harassment claims were made
• In lawsuit: In her initial lawsuit and      media coverage, Ms Dunavant detailed specific harassment allegations 
• In deposition: However, Dunavant made admissions denying her allegations and in fact, state that      the lawsuit was “too specific,” inaccurate, or false

It would seem that the record demonstrates exaggeration, not harassment.

2. Pamela Bowers: Divorce, Defamation, and the “Grope” Claim

Background

Pamela Bowers, Voros’ former spouse of a 30+ year relationship, was a senior instructor at USC. They co-directed ICA and shared both personal and professional responsibilities. Their divorce in 2017 introduced personal conflict into their workplace relationship. 

Later, Bowers alleged Voros defamed her, interfered with her teaching, and even attempted to grope her.

The “Grope” Allegation

The most serious claim—that Voros attempted to grope her—was never reported to USC. This is significant because Bowers made multiple complaints about other issues to administrators, yet did not mention such conduct at the time. The allegation surfaced only in her lawsuit, seemingly echoing the situation seen in Dunavant’s case.

Pattern of Litigation-Only Allegations

The record shows:

No contemporaneous complaint to USC or EOP.

No corroboration in documents.

Allegation appeared for the first time in pleadings.

In a situation that appears to mirror the Dunavant pattern: it would seem that complaints of reprehensible actions -not initially made to university authorities - were raised in the lawsuit and reframed as workplace misconduct.

Relationships and Bias

Bowers’ allegations cannot be separated from her ties to Jaime Misenheimer, who also babysat for the Voros children and later provided affidavits in support of Bowers’ divorce. It appears that this personal relationship also spilled into litigation against Voros.

Together with Dunavant, the interrelationship of Bowers and Misenheimer created a cluster of overlapping claims, amplified in court filings and media - but remain unsupported by sworn statements by those making the allegations as documented in the public record.

3. Jaime Misenheimer: The “Closet Incident”

Allegation

In 2020, USC adjunct instructor, former student of Voros and Bowers, Voros children's former babysitter, and longtime friend of Bowers, Jaime Misenheimer alleged that Voros cornered her in a classroom closet at USC, pressed against her, and held a plastic mannequin head (used in classroom demonstration of the anatomy and the optics of vision) near her face.

Lack of Contemporaneous Complaint

It is important to note that no EOP or USC complaint was ever filed by Misenheimer regarding this alleged incident. The claim, however, surfaced years late in litigation.

Contradicted by Department Chair

In fact, Dr. Peter Chametzky, USC Art Department (SVAD) Chair at the time, denied ever hearing anything of the incident at the time and later testified:

“I clearly recall receiving a copy of Plaintiff’s complaint … My jaw dropped open when I read the allegation of the closet incident—I had never heard of that allegation before.”
(Chametzky Dep. 61–65)

It would seem that if in fact the event had occurred, it was never reported through normal channels to the Department Chair.

Supervisory Emails Show Routine Oversight

Contemporaneous emails between Voros, Misenheimer, and administrators show ordinary supervisory communications through the University: reminders about weekly reports, follow-ups on incomplete projects, and copying HR on performance concerns. (Ex. 14). 

Rather than harassment, the paper trail shows professional oversight consistent with departmental standards.

Evolution of Claims

Bowers’ “grope” allegation, Dunavant’s “sexual acts” story, Misenheimer’s “closet incident” emerged only in litigation, never in real time.

4. Pattern of Escalation and Media Amplification

The common threads across the Dunavant, Bowers, and Misenheimer complaints are unmistakable:

1. Initial concerns were about work conditions, interpersonal disputes, or supervisory oversight.

2. Lawsuits introduced new, more salacious allegations not raised contemporaneously.

3. Depositions rolled those allegations back—“too specific,” inaccurate, unsupported.

4. Media coverage amplified the lawsuits, presenting allegations as fact and omitting the contradictions revealed under oath.

However, the publicly available court documents tell a largely consistent story: each plaintiff’s claims became more dramatic over time, yet failed to withstand scrutiny when tested against the record.

5.Conclusion: 

The Record Vindicates Voros

David Voros spent more than two decades teaching and mentoring hundreds of students at USC and co-founding a study-abroad facility that created once-in-a-lifetime opportunities. The allegations against him—whether from a graduate student, a former spouse, or an adjunct, who had been a student, a family friend and his children's babysitter, seem to share a similar pattern: ordinary disputes weaponized into misconduct claims.

The record is clear:

• Dunavant admitted no harassment occurred.
• Bowers never reported “groping” until her lawsuit.
• Misenheimer’s “closet incident” was never raised until litigation.

What appears in lawsuits and media headlines does not appear in contemporaneous records. Instead, the evidence appears to indicate exaggeration, contradiction, and retroactive reframing.

It is our position that this is not a story of predatory conduct by David Voros. Instead, it appears to be a story of personal grievances and professional disputes inflated into sensational allegations, then amplified without scrutiny or investigation by the press.

It is instead our belief that Professor Voros deserves recognition not for the accusations levied against him by these three individuals, but for the decades of professional dedication that remain intact despite them.

The following documents are all pulled from the PUBLIC ACCES to COURT ELECTRONIC RECORDS (PACER) site.