What happens when the subject of a failed harassment complaint retaliates?
A recent case out of the Southern District of New York reinforces the lesson that employers should be careful to avoid retaliation in response to harassment complaints -- even when the complaints have no merit. A Bloomberg article explains the case:
“When former Columbia University assistant finance professor [Ravina] finally agreed to dinner with her mentor and senior colleague [Bekaert] after months of dodging his invitations, he ended what she hoped was a platonic meal by touching her backside as she left the cab they shared.”
Sydney Maki, Ex-Columbia Professor Tells Jury of Male Mentor's Harassment (2018), Bloomberg.
As a result of Bekaert’s unwelcome advances, Ravina lodged a harassment complaint with Columbia. After learning of the complaint, Bekaert refused to continue their research together and wrote dozens of negative emails about Ravina to colleagues in the industry. Ravina sued for sexual harassment, gender discrimination and retaliation, claiming that Brekaert’s harassment and subsequent retaliation blocked her bid for tenure.
As the court explained, “She testified that Bekaert required her to complete busy work, delayed drafting a paper, declined to give his approval for Ravina to complete certain work, and repeatedly refused to send her the codes that he had developed with their research assistant. . . . Ravina testified that Bekaert’s stalling caused a six-month delay in finalizing her paper in the months leading up to her tenure vote.” Ravina v. Columbia University, No. 16-CV-2137, 2019 WL 1450449, at *7 (S.D.N.Y Mar. 31, 2019).
The court found that Brekaert sent emails which, “could be construed, reasonably, as evincing a motivation to retaliate against Ravina for her complaints of sexual harassment. To that end, many of the emails contained angry and biting language . . . .” Id. Some examples include:
“I will be over the hill professional with her. That may actually get more under her skin than me giving in to her schemes.” Id.
“I just have to spend enormous amounts of time replying to her in the most neutral way possible (you can image what a hard time I am having with that; I would even in normal circumstances, but now writing something bland and neutral, while I am thinking what an incredible mean b. she is, is torture.)” Id.
“The evil bitch went ahead.” Id.
“You have no idea how upsetting this is. She is very crazy and sick ... She has made my life hell for two years now ... This is my ‘touched by evil’ experience in life.” Id.
Following a 15-day trial, “a jury found that Ravina failed to prove that either Defendant [Columbia or Brekaert] had discriminated against her, but that Bekaert had retaliated against her for accusing him of sexual harassment. The jury awarded Ravina $750,000 in compensatory damages against Bekaert and Columbia, and $500,000 in punitive damages against Bekaert only.” Ravina v. Columbia University, No. 16-CV-2137, 2019 WL 1450449 (S.D.N.Y Mar. 31, 2019). Ravina voluntarily withdrew her sexual harassment claim.
In other words, the jury did not find that gender discrimination took place, but it did find that Brekaert retaliated in response to Ravina’s harassment complaint. The jury held both Brekaert and Columbia liable for Brekaert’s retaliation.
What’s the takeaway for employers? If an employer investigates a harassment complaint and concludes that no harassment took place, the employer can’t take adverse employment action against the employee who lodged the complaint. The employer should also ensure that the subject of the complaint doesn’t retaliate, which is arguably the larger risk. In this case, Columbia was held liable for Brekaert's unsanctioned actions. Other employers should be careful to avoid the same outcome.
To see the court documents and a roundup of articles on this topic, visit affectfinance.org/ravina-v-columbia/.