See discussion of Martin v. Howard University in Martin_v_HU_1999; SexandWorkplaceViolence.
PRESS RELEASE: April 28, 2006
Contact: Law Offices of Dawn V. Martin e-mail: dvmartinlaw@yahoo.com
(202) 408-7040; (703) 642-0207 website: www.dvmartinlaw.com
VERDICT in Landmark Sexual Harassment/Workplace Violence Case, on April 28, 2006, Martin v. Howard
University: Jury Holds that Stalking of Female Professor on Campus was not Based on her Sex
Washington, D.C. – On April 28, 2006, a jury rendered a verdict in favor of the Defendant in Martin v. Howard
University, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19516 (DDC 1999). Although the jury found that Martin had proved that she
was harassed in her workplace by a delusional, homeless stalker, Leonard Harrison, and that Howard did not
take reasonable steps to stop the harassment, the jury also determined that Harrison’s stalking was not
“sexual” or based on her gender. The jury verdict is inconsistent with Judge Hogan’s 1999 decision, which
held, as a matter of law, that Harrison’s conduct toward Martin was based on sex, both because Harrison
pursued Martin as his “natural wife” and made references to her body, referring to her as “voluptuous.” Martin
will appeal.
D.C. Federal District Court Chief Judge Thomas F. Hogan set precedent with Martin, in 1999, holding that an
employer can be held liable for the sexual harassment of an employee, by a non-employee, if the employer
knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take reasonable steps to stop it. During her
second year at Howard, Martin was harassed by a serial stalker with a criminal record and a history of violence,
Leonard Harrison. Harrison had been targeting African American female professors since the mid- 1980s and
claimed that he was searching for his “natural wife,” whom he believes is a character in a book written by NYU
Law School professor, Derrick Bell. In an affidavit, Bell said that Harrison accosted him in 1990, when he was
teaching at Harvard Law School. Bell described the confrontation as the “most frightening experience of my
career.” Harrison told Bell that he would return and “blow your head off.” Judge Hogan precluded Prof. Bell
from testifying.
Evidence at trial demonstrated that Howard Law School’s then Dean, Alice Gresham-Bullock, ignored Howard’
s own security procedures and the instructions of the D.C. police department. In a memo to Martin, Bullock
wrote that she was discussing the stalking with the Director of Security, Lawrence Dawson -- but at trial,
Bullock admitted that she never talked to Dawson or any security officer about the stalking. Bullock never
barred Harrison from campus. Bullock later sarcastically told the EEOC that she felt like Martin wanted her to
“wrestle the stalker down.”
Because the jury found that the stalking was not based on sex, it also found that she had not engaged in
protected activity under Title VII or the D.C. Human Rights Act; therefore, her retaliation claims also failed.
Martin had alleged that she was rejected for a permanent tenure-track position and/or a continued visitorship in
retaliation for her requests that the University take reasonable steps to keep Harrison out of her workplace.
Privately, Bullock indicated to Vice Chair of the Appointments (APT) Committee, Prof. Taslitz, that she did not
want Martin on the faculty. The testimony of the five members of the Committee indicated that Taslitz
misrepresented Martin’s publications and those of a junior visiting professor to induce other Committee
members to select the junior professor to teach the EEO course that Martin had been teaching at Howard for
two years. The APT Committee Chair, Prof. Isaiah Leggett, candidate for Montgomery County Executive (former
County Councilman), testified that he found Martin to be a good colleague, but he was “confused” about the
status of her publications. Bullock admitted that there were at least three vacant tenure track positions, for
which Martin qualified, when Howard terminated her. Howard students sent letters and petitions protesting
Martin’s non-renewal, praising her as a professor who “cares” about her students. Martin, a single mother,
was left without a job and her reputation severely damaged. In his deposition, the most senior faculty member,
Prof. Spencer Boyer, testified that he believes that Martin should be reinstated. Martin won a $2.25 million
dollar verdict in a workplace violence case. Gantt v. Security USA, 356 F. 3d 547 (4th Cir. 2004); however, she
was not able to win her own at the trial court level. Martin seeks amicus assistance on appeal.
PRESS RELEASE: April 28, 2006
Contact: Law Offices of Dawn V. Martin e-mail: dvmartinlaw@yahoo.com
(202) 408-7040; (703) 642-0207 website: www.dvmartinlaw.com
VERDICT in Landmark Sexual Harassment/Workplace Violence Case, on April 28, 2006, Martin v. Howard
University: Jury Holds that Stalking of Female Professor on Campus was not Based on her Sex
Washington, D.C. – On April 28, 2006, a jury rendered a verdict in favor of the Defendant in Martin v. Howard
University, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19516 (DDC 1999). Although the jury found that Martin had proved that she
was harassed in her workplace by a delusional, homeless stalker, Leonard Harrison, and that Howard did not
take reasonable steps to stop the harassment, the jury also determined that Harrison’s stalking was not
“sexual” or based on her gender. The jury verdict is inconsistent with Judge Hogan’s 1999 decision, which
held, as a matter of law, that Harrison’s conduct toward Martin was based on sex, both because Harrison
pursued Martin as his “natural wife” and made references to her body, referring to her as “voluptuous.” Martin
will appeal.
D.C. Federal District Court Chief Judge Thomas F. Hogan set precedent with Martin, in 1999, holding that an
employer can be held liable for the sexual harassment of an employee, by a non-employee, if the employer
knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take reasonable steps to stop it. During her
second year at Howard, Martin was harassed by a serial stalker with a criminal record and a history of violence,
Leonard Harrison. Harrison had been targeting African American female professors since the mid- 1980s and
claimed that he was searching for his “natural wife,” whom he believes is a character in a book written by NYU
Law School professor, Derrick Bell. In an affidavit, Bell said that Harrison accosted him in 1990, when he was
teaching at Harvard Law School. Bell described the confrontation as the “most frightening experience of my
career.” Harrison told Bell that he would return and “blow your head off.” Judge Hogan precluded Prof. Bell
from testifying.
Evidence at trial demonstrated that Howard Law School’s then Dean, Alice Gresham-Bullock, ignored Howard’
s own security procedures and the instructions of the D.C. police department. In a memo to Martin, Bullock
wrote that she was discussing the stalking with the Director of Security, Lawrence Dawson -- but at trial,
Bullock admitted that she never talked to Dawson or any security officer about the stalking. Bullock never
barred Harrison from campus. Bullock later sarcastically told the EEOC that she felt like Martin wanted her to
“wrestle the stalker down.”
Because the jury found that the stalking was not based on sex, it also found that she had not engaged in
protected activity under Title VII or the D.C. Human Rights Act; therefore, her retaliation claims also failed.
Martin had alleged that she was rejected for a permanent tenure-track position and/or a continued visitorship in
retaliation for her requests that the University take reasonable steps to keep Harrison out of her workplace.
Privately, Bullock indicated to Vice Chair of the Appointments (APT) Committee, Prof. Taslitz, that she did not
want Martin on the faculty. The testimony of the five members of the Committee indicated that Taslitz
misrepresented Martin’s publications and those of a junior visiting professor to induce other Committee
members to select the junior professor to teach the EEO course that Martin had been teaching at Howard for
two years. The APT Committee Chair, Prof. Isaiah Leggett, candidate for Montgomery County Executive (former
County Councilman), testified that he found Martin to be a good colleague, but he was “confused” about the
status of her publications. Bullock admitted that there were at least three vacant tenure track positions, for
which Martin qualified, when Howard terminated her. Howard students sent letters and petitions protesting
Martin’s non-renewal, praising her as a professor who “cares” about her students. Martin, a single mother,
was left without a job and her reputation severely damaged. In his deposition, the most senior faculty member,
Prof. Spencer Boyer, testified that he believes that Martin should be reinstated. Martin won a $2.25 million
dollar verdict in a workplace violence case. Gantt v. Security USA, 356 F. 3d 547 (4th Cir. 2004); however, she
was not able to win her own at the trial court level. Martin seeks amicus assistance on appeal.
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Law Offices of Dawn V. Martin Press Release in Martin v. Howard University |
