University Can Be Held Liable For Professor's Harassment By Homeless Man
April 1, 2000
Schools and colleges may be held liable for harassment of faculty members by
persons who are neither employees nor students. In Martin v. Howard University
et al., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19516 (D.D.C. Dec. 15, 1999), the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia recently held that Howard University
School of Law may be liable for a homeless man’s sexual harassment of a female
visiting professor. The professor alleged that she was sexually harassed by Mr.
Harrison, a homeless man who was neither an employee nor a student of the
University, but who had free access to the law school campus and buildings and
was known to the University as a "stalker" with a criminal history.
The professor claimed that the University had thereby facilitated sexual
harassment in her workplace. The professor brought a lawsuit against the
University alleging, among other things, sexual harassment in violation of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act.
Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an
employee as to the employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges
of employment because of the employee’s sex. Sexual harassment, which is
conduct that is "sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions
of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment," is
a violation of Title VII. However, because Mr. Harrison was not an employee of
the University, the professor also had to show that the University knew or
should have known of the existence of a hostile work environment and failed to
take proper remedial action. In determining whether an employer should be liable
for a non-employee, courts consider the employer’s degree of control over and
legal responsibility for the alleged harasser.
In this case, the D.C. court ruled that the professor had enough evidence of
liability to proceed to a trial on the merits. The University had prior
knowledge of Mr. Harrison’s alleged harassment but did not prevent that
conduct from continuing. Further, the court agreed with the professor that Mr.
Harrison pursued her because of her sex: Mr. Harrison sent her two letters, left
her three voice mail messages and attempted three personal visits to her office
— all because of his delusion that the professor was his wife.
The court also ruled that a reasonable jury could find Mr. Harrison’s
conduct severe or pervasive enough to create an abusive working environment. In
so ruling, the court considered (1) the frequency of the discriminatory conduct;
(2) whether the conduct was physically threatening or humiliating or of a mere
offensive utterance; (3) whether the conduct unreasonably interfered with an
employee’s work performance; and (4) whether a reasonable woman would have
considered these actions to be severely hostile or abusive.
The lesson here is never be an ostrich. Academic institutions cannot afford
to be caught with their heads in the sand when a faculty member or other member
of the academic community reports an incident of harassment. Institutions should
work with their legal counsel, security personnel and local law enforcement to
establish appropriate policies and procedures for protecting faculty, staff and
students from both internal and external threats.
For more information, contact Jennifer Smith at 1-888-688-8500 or jensmith@hlaw.com.
Related Practices