Dartmouth Sexual Misconduct Suit Questions School's Legal Process
A federal lawsuit filed against Dartmouth College raises questions about the roles played by Dartmouth's Title IX coordinator, the outside counsel hired to investigate the claims, and the school's office of general counsel.
November 16, 2018 at 04:56 PM
6 minute read
A federal lawsuit filed against Dartmouth College on Thursday alleging that the school did not adequately respond to women's complaints about sexual misconduct involving three former faculty members raises questions about the roles played by Dartmouth's Title IX coordinator and an outside counsel hired to investigate the claims. It also indirectly raises similar questions about the school's office of general counsel.
But Dartmouth was not answering any questions Friday.
A statement to Corporate Counsel on behalf of the school from Justin Anderson, vice president of communications, said, “Sexual misconduct and harassment have no place at Dartmouth. … However, we respectfully, but strongly, disagree with the characterizations of Dartmouth's actions in the complaint and will respond through our own court filings.”
The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court of the District of New Hampshire, seeks $70 million in damages. The complaint accuses Dartmouth of “breaching its duty to protect its students from unwanted sexual harassment and sexual assault and to provide an education and/or workplace free from sexual harassment and other forms of gender-based discrimination.”
Among other things, it alleges sexual assault, harassment and discrimination from three former professors in the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, including the department's chair. It labels the department a “predators' club.”
The suit accuses the school of ignoring their complaints about the issues for more than 16 years. It alleges that professors Todd Heatherton, William Kelley and Paul Whalen “leered at, groped, sexted, intoxicated and even raped female students”—although only one professor was accused of rape in the suit.
The complaint says the school “permitted three of its prominent (and well- funded) professors to turn a human behavior research department into a 21st Century 'Animal House.'”
The three men could not be reached for comment, but The New York Times quoted a statement from Heatherton saying he “categorically denies playing any role in creating a toxic environment at Dartmouth College.” The Times said he also apologized for behavior that women had construed as sexual, and he said it had been taken out of context.
The complaint says at least 27 women raised Title IX complaints to Dartmouth, where nonlawyer Kristi Clemens serves as the Title IX coordinator. Clemens on Friday also declined to comment on her role in the investigation.
The complaint alleges that the women students were told to continue working with the three professors for at least four months after their complaints were filed, and that “the sexual harassment continued unabated.” Some of the professors continued to be promoted even after the complaints were filed, it says.
Dartmouth only disclosed the Title IX investigation after news of it was leaked to the media in October 2017, the complaint states, and the New Hampshire Attorney General's Office opened a criminal investigation.
Dartmouth then hired an outside counsel to conduct an independent investigation. The investigator, Jennifer Davis, founder of Jenn Davis LLC in Wellesley, Massachusetts, was out of the country Friday and unavailable for comment.
But the women students complained about Davis in the complaint. Though the school promised students a voice in the investigation, the complaint says, “Dartmouth unilaterally stopped the investigation and allowed the three professors to retire and/or resign in July 2018, more than 15 months after plaintiffs filed their initial complaints.”
Dartmouth's statement put it this way: “As a result of the misconduct we found earlier this year by the three faculty members in the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences (PBS), we took unprecedented steps toward revoking their tenure and terminating their employment. They are no longer at Dartmouth and remain banned from our campus and from attending all Dartmouth-sponsored events, no matter where the events are held.”
The complaint also accuses Davis of gathering “extensive confidential information” from the complainants, including health care reports, and then sharing it with the three professors and their lawyers without the students' knowledge or consent.
The suit does not explicitly mention Dartmouth general counsel Sandhya Iyer. But at other universities that underwent high-profile sexual abuse cases, such as Penn State and Michigan State, the general counsel have lost their jobs over their handling of the issues.
Iyer did not return messages Friday asking about any role she had in handling the complaints, advising the school administrators, or hiring or overseeing Davis, the independent investigator. The GC's website states that all outside counsel report through Iyer's office.
The complaint also accuses Dartmouth of “taking steps to silence the victims and discourage them from pursuing legal action or demanding change.” It cites an Oct. 12 departmental meeting called with graduate students and Clemens, the Title IX coordinator, to “dispel rumors” about the Title IX investigation.
“It became quickly apparent that the meeting was a public platform to disparage the victims and discourage them from pursuing legal action,” the complaint states. It says the victims were accused of “pulling the department backwards rather than forward” by continuing to demand change at Dartmouth.
In a statement, Karen Bitar, a partner at Seyfarth Shaw in New York who is not involved in the case, said, “What makes this complaint unique is the level of detail … as to the internal investigation that began in February 2017 and ended in July 2018. The complaint also details how the investigation was a sham, and that the professors were permitted to resign or retire before any disciplinary proceeding took place, and while Dartmouth was under investigation by the NH attorney general.”
Bitar's statement adds, “Dartmouth took significant steps to protect the faculty at issue, and took steps, set forth in detail, designed to dissuade the victims from coming forward. This will be a difficult lawsuit to defend.”
See also:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllUS Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
Ex-Red Robin CLO Joins Norton Rose Fulbright After Helping Sell Latest Employer for $4.9 Billion
Newly Public Biotech Startup Hires Life Sciences Veteran as GC
Trending Stories
- 1Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 2Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 3Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
- 4Husch Blackwell, Foley Among Law Firms Opening Southeast Offices This Year
- 5In Lawsuit, Ex-Google Employee Says Company’s Layoffs Targeted Parents and Others on Leave
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250