Skip to main content
An Oregon Health & Science University investigation found that Tarek Salaway, the health system’s former CEO, engaged in hostile and unprofessional conduct before his firing early this year after just over three months on the job.
OHSU released a copy of the lengthy Workplace Review investigation on Friday, in response to a public records request.
Among other things, the report details interviews conducted in March with several OHSU staff members: “multiple senior leaders, a frontline clinical traveler” and Salaway himself.
While a basic account of this saga has been previously reported, the new documents portray the broader sweep of OHSU’s investigation—and detail the specific claims an OHSU investigation “substantiated” and which it did not.
One key point: The OHSU investigation was “inconclusive” as to whether Salaway made violent threats regarding a departing colleague, a claim he has vehemently denied.
The investigation also did not substantiate claims that Salaway had breached confidentiality when talking to a travel worker about a sensitive legal matter.
But the probe found issues with his tenure on many other scores.
“Although the investigation did not confirm the allegation of threatening or violent statements due to the absence of direct testimony from the key witness, there is an inherent theme of conduct that is not becoming of an executive leader,” wrote OHSU investigator Genevieve Krietemeyer in the message detailing her findings to OHSU president Shereef Elnahal. “He has not been successful at building psychological safety and trust within his team.”
The new files represent the most comprehensive look yet at how the key health institution, Portland’s largest employer, investigated complaints regarding the short-tenured CEO.
Elnahal, the president, announced Salaway’s departure in early April. Salaway then sued OHSU for $15 million, alleging discrimination, whistleblower retaliation and wrongful termination. The suit argued that, in his opening weeks at a troubled institution, Salaway had moved diligently to make changes in the name of safety and quality, only to face stark internal resistance and bigotry-laced comments directed at him and others he sought to empower.
Some of the newly released accounts resemble those WW reported shortly after Salaway’s ouster. Witness statements gave the impression Salaway had zealously set out to improve OHSU’s health care operations. But some felt, from his early days, he had an arrogant streak, could listen poorly, and at times made unprofessional comments that made colleagues uneasy.
Salaway had claimed the documents OHSU released earlier this year painted an incomplete and misleading picture.
The broader investigative file shows some employees felt his leadership was strong in certain areas, while others had soured on him.
Respondents to a “360 Leadership Assessment,” for example, generally felt Salaway recognized staff members for their contributions and possessed a strong operational knowledge of health care systems. But, the assessment found, some felt the new CEO made decisions fast and would benefit from listening more before forming conclusions.
The newly released documents also contain summaries of interviews OHSU investigators conducted with Salaway himself in March, when they asked him about an array of concerns, from allegations of “interruptive, dismissive, or demeaning interactions” to more pressing matters, like whether he had joked about cutting someone.
Word of that alleged threat had spread among a small group of OHSU staff members, prompting the university threat assessment team to investigate. The results of that separate investigation are among the newly released documents. The threat assessment team cited an executive assistant who expressed that the comment, and an accompanying gesture, were “just Salaway venting and in frustration,” and that she did not perceive a real threat.
When asked about the matter by an investigator, Salaway denied having made a threat at all. “Never ever in my career ever,” he responded. He told investigators he had made a “three strikes you’re out”-style motion—like a baseball umpire—not a threatening gesture.
A few days later, the documents show, Salaway wrote to OHSU leaders to file a defamation complaint. He accused the executive assistant of spreading false rumors that he had discussed cutting someone and used a hand gesture of slitting a throat. ”This is not only false, it is callous and extremely injurious to me, my ability to work, inconsistent with who I am," he wrote.
He noted the statement could have lasting consequences on him and his professional future, and that he believed the false allegation had resulted in OHSU police profiling him.
The investigative files were the subject of an ongoing legal battle between Oregon Public Broadcasting and OHSU, which had sued to block their release, citing confidentiality concerns. That case now moves toward settlement, though OPB is pushing for legal fees. The nonprofit media outlet might also not regard the files as satisfying its initial records request.
The OHSU investigation “substantiated” that Salaway engaged in “hostile conduct.” Its report also describes a “variability in demeanor”—essentially that Salaway presented markedly different personas depending on the audience: “polished, collaborative, and professional in board-level or large-group settings, but interruptive, dismissive, or less regulated in 1:1 or small-group meetings.”
“In sum,” the investigator’s note to Elnahal found, “the investigation concludes that, aside from the unsubstantiated threat allegation, the Respondent engaged in a pattern of conduct inconsistent with OHSU policy, values, and leadership expectations.”
Asked for comment on the new documents, Salaway’s lawyer, Jackie Ford, said her client’s response remains the same as in April, when WW first reached out about the allegations.
“At the end of the day,” Ford wrote in an email, “my client sought to hold OHSU leaders accountable for the great responsibility they have to the public, to the patients and communities served in assuring patient safety, quality of care, institutional stewardship, conditions affecting the safety of staff and patients in the emergency department, and aspects of the workplace climate that were inconsistent with the organization’s stated commitments to equity, inclusion, and respect for leaders and communities from historically underrepresented backgrounds.
“My client valued these goals as the priority of his duties more than institutional politics and maintaining the status quo.”
