A Tale of Two Lawyers In Columbia’s #MeToo Trial - Poets&Quants

Attorney David Sanford represented the untenured Columbia Business School Professor Enrichetta Ravina

After a more than two week trial in a $30 million sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit involving Columbia Business School and two professors, lawyers delivered their summation arguments yesterday (July 25) afternoon. David Sanford of Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP, represented Enrichetta Ravina, the untenured junior professor who claims that she was a victim of sexual harassment and that her academic career was sabotaged by Geert Bekaert, a senior tenured faculty member at Columbia Business School.

Edward Hernstadt of Hernstadt Atlas PLLC, defended Bekaert, portraying the case as “a story of the betrayal of a research partnership and a friendship through scapegoating to evade the consequences of failure to publish, rather than a case of discrimination or retaliation.”

Bettina Plevan represented Columbia University, arguing that the university did everything it could to investigate Ravina’s claims.

A jury began its deliberations this morning. If they find in favor of Ravina, a mini-trial over damages will then commence, with opening witnesses and closing. That portion of the case could last a day and one-half. Then, the jury would reconvene and come back with a damage verdict.

The Judge instructed the parties t

Here are excerpts from both the summations delivered by Hernstadt and Sanford to the court.

Edward Hernstadt, lawyer for Columbia Business School finance professor Geert Bekaert:

Attorney Edward Hernstadt

Your Honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you have heard days of testimony, you have been shown stacks of e-mails and other documents, but we know that this case really comes down to one thing: Who’s telling the truth here?

The judge will instruct you about what evidence you should consider and how, but credibility, who you believe is telling the truth, will come down in the end to your common sense, your own life experience, your judgment in assessing the two main witnesses — Professor Ravina and Professor Bekaert — and all the e-mails and other documents that shed light on their testimony.

Over the past weeks you have heard the story of an academic who received her third straight terrible evaluation in the spring of 2014, and knew that, based on her meager publication record, two papers in the nine years as of 2014 since she got her Ph.D., that there was no way she was ever going to get tenure at Columbia.

This is the story of Professor Ravina’s deciding to take a different route to tenure, her plan B, by blaming her failure on Professor Bekaert. To do so, Professor Ravina twisted examples of the friendly and collegial friendship between them into something false and dark, and, worse, made an ugly allegation about him.

‘WHO DO YOU BELIVE IS TELLING THE TRUTH?’

Throughout this case the testimony of Professor Ravina and Professor Bekaert is directly contradictory, which means that in the end you will have to answer the question of which of these two people is more credible.

Who do you believe is telling the truth?

The evidence you have heard overwhelmingly demonstrates that Professor Ravina is not telling the truth. Professor Ravina has asserted that Professor Bekaert discriminated and retaliated against her in violation of the prevail, Professor Ravina must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Professor Bekaert treated her less well at least in part because of her gender.

‘HER STORIES ABOUT HIM ARE WRONG, THEY ARE MISLEADING…THEY ARE JUST NOT TRUE’

These are the allegations of sexual advances and harassment. And Professor Ravina must also prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Professor Bekaert retaliated against her after she complained of sex discrimination by taking actions that were intended to and were likely to deter a
person from engaging in protected activity.

Based on all the evidence, it’s clear that Professor Bekaert did not make any advances towards Professor Ravina. He did not try to push her into a sexual relationship with the threat of delaying work. He did not try to delay the 401(k) papers at any time.

Her stories about him are wrong, they are misleading, and, in the case of the worst thing she says about him, they are just not true.

‘USING WORDS LIKE BITCH OR EVIL OR CRAZY…HE WAS BLOWING OFF STEAM’

You’re going to hear plaintiff’s counsel, possibly, use the words “strangle” as if the e-mail in which Professor Bekaert used that word is itself an attempt at assault. Read the e-mail for the full context. You can see it is a back and forth between him and his girlfriend before he even knew that Professor Ravina had made a sexual harassment complaint. It’s not retaliation.

And even if she had known about these e-mails, she had no idea about them until this case. Even if she knew about them, how is complaining to a loved one, even using strong words, even using words like bitch or evil or crazy, how is that not something you would expect someone you accuse of wrongdoing to do. To blow off steam to a loved one. To vent. Professor Bekaert’s testimony shows that this is exactly what he was doing. There’s no evidence that he intended to disparage, that he intended to harm her reputation.

This has been a long trial. And we’re asking you now to do even more work. Please think about the testimony you’ve  heard, think about the documents you’ve seen, think about the credibility of the witnesses. Their demeanor, their honesty, their willingness to admit things even if it doesn’t help them.

Think about their biases, think about their influences. Consider the documents, the e-mails in their full context. I’m sure that when you do, you’ll agree that Professor Bekaert did not discriminate against Professor Ravina, did not retaliate against Professor Ravina, and reach a verdict in his
favor. Thank you.

Enrichetta Ravina, a former assistant professor of finance and economics at Columbia Business Schoo who was denied tenure, accuses senior faculty member Professor Geert Bekaert of sexual harassment and sabotage

David Sanford, lawyer for Enrichetta Ravina, the former Columbia Business School assistant professor who was denied tenure:

Attorney David Sanford

May it please the Court, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, good afternoon.

You have heard a lot from Professor Bekaert’s counsel about what he calls plan B. Plan B is the ultimate plan to salvage a career on the rocks. It is a devious plot to
compensate for professional failure. It is a most despicable scheme that would be done by a most despicable person. It is, in a word used by Professor Bekaert numerous times in this trial, evil.

To believe that Professor Ravina engaged in a plan B, you would have to believe she is evil, as Professor Bekaert said, I believe, five times on the stand.

You would have to believe that she simply concocted extensive nuanced and detailed allegations out of thin air.

You would have to believe she made up virtually everything because she was concerned she would not receive tenure.

You would have to believe that she was willing to participate in constant meetings with Columbia administrators for two years with evil intent.

You would have to believe that denied tenure, she was willing to level bruising here for
balance, circumstances, a perversion of justice.

You would have to believe that the woman you watched testify in front of you is evil.

Don’t believe it.

‘PROFESSOR RAVINA IS A WOMAN OF INTEGRITY’

Here is the truth: Professor Ravina is a skilled academic, she’s motivated, she is talented, she is hard working. She is also a woman with ethical boundaries. She is also a woman of integrity.

There were certain things like dinners and coffees she was willing to do with Bekaert. There were other things like compliments she was willing to give. She was not willing to compromise her integrity. She was not willing to sacrifice her principles. Plan B for some people in this circumstance would have meant sleeping with Professor Bekaert. Professor Ravina was not willing to do that.

There were clear boundaries and limits to what she would do. She never, ever crossed that line.

‘NO ONE FROM COLUMBIA BESIDES PROFESSOR BEKAERT HAS CLAIMED SHE WAS MAKING THIS UP’

Had she crossed the line, we would not be here. Had she crossed the line, Professor Bekaert would have worked and supported her. That’s what Professor Bekaert communicated when he told Professor Ravina “If you were nicer to me, your papers would move faster.” Professor Bekaert’s story about plan B is
simply unbelievable.

No one from Columbia besides Professor Bekaert has claimed that Professor Ravina was making this up. In fact, Director Dunn, Columbia’s own investigator, testified that he thought Professor Ravina honestly expressed her beliefs about what was happening with Professor Bekaert. He thought

Professor Ravina was deeply affected and troubled by what she had experienced. And faculty at Columbia Business School were so concerned about Professor Ravina’s situation that they repeatedly escalated their concerns all over the university.

‘COLUMBIA CARED MORE ABOUT PROTECTING ITSELF. ITS INVESTIGATION WAS A COMPLETE SHAM’

To the division chair, to the dean of the business school, to the executive committee, to the provost of the university, and
even to the president himself of Columbia University.

But Columbia University still would not act to protect Professor Ravina. Why is that? Because Columbia cared more about protecting itself. Columbia’s investigation was a complete sham. Columbia would not admit that a prominent male tenured faculty member had discriminated and retaliated.

Columbia administrators would not intervene when Professor Bekaert sabotaged Professor Ravina’s research. They would not disturb his so-called academic freedom. Columbia wouldn’t call its training for Professor Bekaert a disciplinary measure.

They would not admit that Professor Bekaert needed to be disciplined. Columbia would not grant Professor Ravina a personal hardship leave that its own policies authorized. They would not admit that Professor Ravina had suffered a personal hardship because of Professor Bekaert. Columbia would not allow the tenure vote to consider Professor Ravina’s allegations against Professor Bekaert. Columbia would not admit how profound his conduct had damaged her work.

‘SHE ACKNOWLEDGED ON THE STAND THAT SHE WOULDN’T HAVE GIVEN HERSELF TENURE AT THAT POINT’

Instead of adopting Professor Bekaert’s plan B story, Columbia adopts a different approach. Columbia’s defense, in a nutshell, is that Professor Ravina did not deserve tenure. But this case is not about that tenure decision. It’s not about the tenure decision. You can hold both defendants liable for discrimination and retaliation regardless of whether Professor Ravina deserved to get tenure. Every employee, regardless of her tenure prospects, is entitled to be free of discrimination and retaliation.

Professor Ravina simply does not claim that Columbia should have given her tenure based on the record as it stood at the time of her tenure vote. In fact, she acknowledged on the stand that she wouldn’t have given herself tenure at that point herself.

Regardless of whether or not Professor Ravina deserved tenure, Professor Bekaert is liable for discriminating and retaliating against Professor Ravina, including sexually harassing her, delaying her work after she rebuffed and reported him, and damaging her career by sending poison pen e-mails all over the world.

Columbia is liable for failing to address and prevent Bekaert’s conduct and for denying a meaningful extension of Professor Ravina’s tenure process.

DON’T MISS: COLUMBIA BUSINESS SCHOOL DEAN CALLS FACULTY DISPUTE ‘A SOAP OPERA’ or COLUMBIA PROF ALSO ACCUSED OF HARASSMENT BY AN MBA STUDENT

 

The post A Tale of Two Lawyers In Columbia’s #MeToo Trial appeared first on Poets&Quants.

from Poets&Quants
via IFTTT