THE BIZARRE FACTS OF STALKING AND EMPLOYER RETALIATION
Stalked by a Delusional, Serial Campus Stalker at the Law School
These are the facts behind the case of Martin v. Howard University, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
19516 (D.C. 1999); 81 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 964; 15 BNA IER CAS 1587. See
MartinvHowardU for overview.
Sexual Harassment by a Stranger on Campus/Hostile Work Environment
On November 20, 1997, Prof. Martin received Harrison's letters and telephone message, stating
that he needed her "more than anything" and hoped that she was the "wife" he envisioned. Prof.
Martin reported Harrison's harassment to the Law School Dean's Office, the only Howard
Campus Security officer on duty on the Law School Campus (located at Connecticut and Van
Ness Avenues, not on the Georgia Avenue main campus), Officer Sirleaf. The Dean's office
refused to assist in her filing a criminal complaint, but suggested that she file one on her own. In
order to be taken more seriously by the police department than if she filed the complaint alone,
Prof. Martin enlisted the assistance of Officer Sirleaf facilitate the meeting with the D.C.
Metropolitan Police Department (MPD).
The D.C. Police Department characterized the harassment as "stalking." Criminal "stalking" is
defined by the D.C. Criminal Code as severe forms of harassment that are threatening or
annoying and processed Prof. Martin's complaint as a criminal stalking complaint. Howard
Campus Security Officer Sirleaf also filed a campus police report. MPD and Officer Sirleaf
advised the Law School ban Harrison from campus and post notices and mug shots to inform
the law school community that he was banned.
Even as of five days after Prof. Martin reported Harrison's harassment to the Dean's office, the
Law School had failed to follow the advice of MPD and its own campus security officer, Officer
Sirleaf. Harrison was still walking freely in and out of the Law School buildings and was seen
using the Law School Library. No signs or mug shots had been posted, even though Harrison
had a criminal record and a history of violence, according to both MPD and the homeless shelter
that had just evicted him for violent behavior. Prof. Martin therefore reduced her requests for
protection to writing. See November 25, 1997 memo asking for protection from Harrison. See
also Prof. Martin's December 2, 1997 memo detailing Harrison's attempt to enter her office and
Officer Dowdy's "chase" of Harrison off the Law School Campus (at Connecticut and Van Ness
Avenues) and into the woods; and Prof. Martin's December 18, 1997 memo to Associate Dean
Newsom, again requesting that a notice be posted banning Harrison from campus, in accordance
with Howard's own campus security policies and procedures. In support of Ms. Martin's case,
Howard Campus Security Officers Sirleaf and Dowdy testified at trial, as did MPD Detective
Brian Henry, who was assigned the stalking investigation. Both in their depositions and at trial,
Officers Sirleaf and Dowdy, as well as former Howard University Director of Security Dawson,
testified that Howard failed to follow its own security policies in response to Prof. Martin's case.
You can actually hear Officer Sirleaf comment on the case by listening to the Burnie McCain
radio interview of Prof. Martin uploaded above. Officer Sirleaf actually called into the radio
show to corroborate Ms. Martin's complaints and confirm that Howard failed to protect her and
retaliated against her. Officer Sirleaf was still employed at Howard at the time that he made these
comments on the radio.
Dean Bullock had represented to Prof. Martin, in a December 1, 1997 memo, that she was
discussing security matters with Mr. Dawson, in response to her November 25, 1997 memo
regarding Harrison . Howard had claimed, for years, that Dean Bullock informed Mr. Dawson of
Prof. Martin's written complaints regarding Harrison's stalking and that Mr. Dawson was
involved in developing a plan for protecting Prof. Martin from Harrison. When Mr. Dawson was
finally deposed, he testified that Dean Bullock never informed him of Prof. Martin's complaint or
anything about Harrison. He also detailed the precautions that he would have taken, pursuant to
Howard's own security policies and procedures, had Dean Bullock consulted him. Confronted
with Mr. Dawson's testimony, Dean Bullock finally admitted that she never discussed the
stalking with Mr. Dawson, any other person in campus security or the D.C. Police department.
Howard's lawyers tried to discredit its own security officers on the stand, but the officers stood
fast to their testimony -- even though one was still an employee of Howard, with 30 years
seniority and the former officer's wife works in the office of the Law School Dean. The former
officer expressed concerns about possible retaliation against his wife for his testimony, but felt
obligated to tell the truth on the stand. Ms. Martin will always be extremely grateful to these
officers -- Officers Sirleaf and Dowdy -- for their integrity and courage.
Similarly, Ms. Martin is grateful to Howard's most senior Law School faculty members, Prof.
Spencer Boyer and Henry Jones, who were part of the legacy of civil rights now claimed by
Howard. Profs. Boyer and Jones, as well as Prof. Sherman Rogers, offered deposition support
for Prof. Martin in the case, although their testimony was not admitted at trial. Prof. Boyer has
taught more African-American lawyers than any other professor in the country. He testified that
he and the other senior members of the faculty had read the primary filings in the case and
believe that Ms. Martin should prevail and be reinstated at Howard Law School to be their
colleague again. Ms. Martin has requested reinstatement as part of the remedy for her retaliatory
non-renewal, as discussed below.
Retaliation for Reporting Stalking/Sexual Harassment at the Law School
Instead of following Howard's own security procedures to bar Harrison from the law school,
Dean Bullock ensured that Prof. Martin's teaching contract was not renewed. Prof. Martin had
excellent teaching evaluations. Many of her students wrote letters and signed petitions to Dean
Bullock in protest protests of her non-renewal. Dean Bullock improperly interfered with the
hiring process by expressing her disfavor with Prof. Martin to the Vice Chair of the Appointment
Committee, Prof. Andrew Taslitz and Associate Dean Michael Newsom; thereafter, Prof. Taslitz
represented the status of Prof. Martin's publications, as well as those of a junior visiting
professor, to his colleagues in a manner that made them believe that the junior professor had a
superior record of scholarship. The remaining four members of the Appointments Committee
therefore selected the junior professor to teach the equal employment law that Prof. Martin had
been teaching for two years at Howard, and four years total. Dean Bullock then assigned a new
professor to take over her Torts I and II classes. In fact, a simple glance at the candidate's
resumes and/or applications revealed that it was Prof. Martin who had the superior record of
scholarship. The selectee had published no articles since graduation from law school, as of
December 18, 1997. Prof. Martin was a recognized national expert in EEO law, had helped
develop national policy in the area at the EEOC and had taught it for four years. The junior
selectee had limited experience in EEO law and had never previously taught it.
In addition to the advertised EEO position filled by the junior visiting professor, Dean Bullock left
at least three additional faculty positions vacant, rather than to allow the Appointments
Committee to consider Prof. Martin for one of them. At the same time, students were clamoring
for courses and protesting the fact that there were not enough courses for them to meet their
graduation requirements, nor were there enough professors to teach them. Appointments
Committee member, Prof. Nolan, testified that she directly asked Dean Bullock whether there
were any additional vacancies so that the Committee could recommend that Prof. Martin fill one
of them. Dean Bullock actually lied to Prof. Nolan, telling her that there were no more
vacancies. In her Answer to the Complaint, Dean Bullock admitted that, in fact, there were at
least three tenure-track vacancies at the time.
It is also worth noting that, while Prof. Martin was removed from the faculty, the same
Appointments Committee, during the same year, granted tenure to Prof. Reginald L. Robinson,
despite complaints that Prof. Robinson's "sexual jokes," which he repeatedly e-mailed to faculty
and staff, were offensive and might cause Howard to be faced with a claim of hostile work
environment on the basis of gender. This and other events at that time reflected Howard Law
extreme insensitivity to issues of sex discrimination and sexual harassment, as well as a disregard
for accountability, under the law, for sexual harassment.
For years, Howard claimed that the junior visiting professor selected had her article published, as
of December 18, 1997, when the Appointments Committee selected her to take over the Equal
Employment Opportunity (EEO) Law class that Prof. Martin had been teaching at Howard for
the previous two years. In fact, this selectee, junior visiting professor's article, was not actually
published until a year later, in the Winter of 1998. For years, while withholding discovery until it
was held in Contempt of Court in 2002, Howard also claimed that Prof. Martin's article was not
even completed, as of December 18, 1997; however, once deposed, all of the members of the
Appointments Committee testified that they actually knew that Prof. Martin's article was not only
completed by that date, but also accepted for publication as of that date. Prof. Martin's article
was published, by the New York University Journal of Law and Policy, at the same time as was
the junior visiting professor, in the Winter of 1997. Prof. Martin also had published prior to
joining Howard's faculty -- which Howard acknowledged on its own website and in the memo
recommending Prof. Martin's hire two years earlier. The selectee had published no articles since
graduation from law school, as of December 18, 1997. Prof. Martin was a recognized national
expert in EEO law, had helped develop national policy in the area at the EEOC and had taught it
for four years. The junior selectee had limited experience in EEO law and had never previously
taught it.
In addition to the advertised EEO position filled by the junior visiting professor, Dean Bullock left
at least three additional faculty positions vacant, rather than to allow the Appointments
Committee to consider Prof. Martin for one of them. At the same time, students were clamoring
for courses and protesting the fact that there were not enough courses for them to meet their
graduation requirements, nor were there enough professors to teach them. Appointments
Committee member, Prof. Nolan, testified that she directly asked Dean Bullock whether there
were any additional vacancies so that the Committee could recommend that Prof. Martin fill one
of them. Dean Bullock actually lied to Prof. Nolan, telling her that there were no more
vacancies. In her Answer to the Complaint, Dean Bullock admitted that, in fact, there were at
least three tenure-track vacancies at the time. Ms. Martin presented the jury with a Chart of
Howard's ever-changing and conflicting purported defenses to its refusal to renew her contract.
Stalked by a Delusional, Serial Campus Stalker at the Law School
These are the facts behind the case of Martin v. Howard University, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
19516 (D.C. 1999); 81 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 964; 15 BNA IER CAS 1587. See
MartinvHowardU for overview.
Sexual Harassment by a Stranger on Campus/Hostile Work Environment
On November 20, 1997, Prof. Martin received Harrison's letters and telephone message, stating
that he needed her "more than anything" and hoped that she was the "wife" he envisioned. Prof.
Martin reported Harrison's harassment to the Law School Dean's Office, the only Howard
Campus Security officer on duty on the Law School Campus (located at Connecticut and Van
Ness Avenues, not on the Georgia Avenue main campus), Officer Sirleaf. The Dean's office
refused to assist in her filing a criminal complaint, but suggested that she file one on her own. In
order to be taken more seriously by the police department than if she filed the complaint alone,
Prof. Martin enlisted the assistance of Officer Sirleaf facilitate the meeting with the D.C.
Metropolitan Police Department (MPD).
The D.C. Police Department characterized the harassment as "stalking." Criminal "stalking" is
defined by the D.C. Criminal Code as severe forms of harassment that are threatening or
annoying and processed Prof. Martin's complaint as a criminal stalking complaint. Howard
Campus Security Officer Sirleaf also filed a campus police report. MPD and Officer Sirleaf
advised the Law School ban Harrison from campus and post notices and mug shots to inform
the law school community that he was banned.
Even as of five days after Prof. Martin reported Harrison's harassment to the Dean's office, the
Law School had failed to follow the advice of MPD and its own campus security officer, Officer
Sirleaf. Harrison was still walking freely in and out of the Law School buildings and was seen
using the Law School Library. No signs or mug shots had been posted, even though Harrison
had a criminal record and a history of violence, according to both MPD and the homeless shelter
that had just evicted him for violent behavior. Prof. Martin therefore reduced her requests for
protection to writing. See November 25, 1997 memo asking for protection from Harrison. See
also Prof. Martin's December 2, 1997 memo detailing Harrison's attempt to enter her office and
Officer Dowdy's "chase" of Harrison off the Law School Campus (at Connecticut and Van Ness
Avenues) and into the woods; and Prof. Martin's December 18, 1997 memo to Associate Dean
Newsom, again requesting that a notice be posted banning Harrison from campus, in accordance
with Howard's own campus security policies and procedures. In support of Ms. Martin's case,
Howard Campus Security Officers Sirleaf and Dowdy testified at trial, as did MPD Detective
Brian Henry, who was assigned the stalking investigation. Both in their depositions and at trial,
Officers Sirleaf and Dowdy, as well as former Howard University Director of Security Dawson,
testified that Howard failed to follow its own security policies in response to Prof. Martin's case.
You can actually hear Officer Sirleaf comment on the case by listening to the Burnie McCain
radio interview of Prof. Martin uploaded above. Officer Sirleaf actually called into the radio
show to corroborate Ms. Martin's complaints and confirm that Howard failed to protect her and
retaliated against her. Officer Sirleaf was still employed at Howard at the time that he made these
comments on the radio.
Dean Bullock had represented to Prof. Martin, in a December 1, 1997 memo, that she was
discussing security matters with Mr. Dawson, in response to her November 25, 1997 memo
regarding Harrison . Howard had claimed, for years, that Dean Bullock informed Mr. Dawson of
Prof. Martin's written complaints regarding Harrison's stalking and that Mr. Dawson was
involved in developing a plan for protecting Prof. Martin from Harrison. When Mr. Dawson was
finally deposed, he testified that Dean Bullock never informed him of Prof. Martin's complaint or
anything about Harrison. He also detailed the precautions that he would have taken, pursuant to
Howard's own security policies and procedures, had Dean Bullock consulted him. Confronted
with Mr. Dawson's testimony, Dean Bullock finally admitted that she never discussed the
stalking with Mr. Dawson, any other person in campus security or the D.C. Police department.
Howard's lawyers tried to discredit its own security officers on the stand, but the officers stood
fast to their testimony -- even though one was still an employee of Howard, with 30 years
seniority and the former officer's wife works in the office of the Law School Dean. The former
officer expressed concerns about possible retaliation against his wife for his testimony, but felt
obligated to tell the truth on the stand. Ms. Martin will always be extremely grateful to these
officers -- Officers Sirleaf and Dowdy -- for their integrity and courage.
Similarly, Ms. Martin is grateful to Howard's most senior Law School faculty members, Prof.
Spencer Boyer and Henry Jones, who were part of the legacy of civil rights now claimed by
Howard. Profs. Boyer and Jones, as well as Prof. Sherman Rogers, offered deposition support
for Prof. Martin in the case, although their testimony was not admitted at trial. Prof. Boyer has
taught more African-American lawyers than any other professor in the country. He testified that
he and the other senior members of the faculty had read the primary filings in the case and
believe that Ms. Martin should prevail and be reinstated at Howard Law School to be their
colleague again. Ms. Martin has requested reinstatement as part of the remedy for her retaliatory
non-renewal, as discussed below.
Retaliation for Reporting Stalking/Sexual Harassment at the Law School
Instead of following Howard's own security procedures to bar Harrison from the law school,
Dean Bullock ensured that Prof. Martin's teaching contract was not renewed. Prof. Martin had
excellent teaching evaluations. Many of her students wrote letters and signed petitions to Dean
Bullock in protest protests of her non-renewal. Dean Bullock improperly interfered with the
hiring process by expressing her disfavor with Prof. Martin to the Vice Chair of the Appointment
Committee, Prof. Andrew Taslitz and Associate Dean Michael Newsom; thereafter, Prof. Taslitz
represented the status of Prof. Martin's publications, as well as those of a junior visiting
professor, to his colleagues in a manner that made them believe that the junior professor had a
superior record of scholarship. The remaining four members of the Appointments Committee
therefore selected the junior professor to teach the equal employment law that Prof. Martin had
been teaching for two years at Howard, and four years total. Dean Bullock then assigned a new
professor to take over her Torts I and II classes. In fact, a simple glance at the candidate's
resumes and/or applications revealed that it was Prof. Martin who had the superior record of
scholarship. The selectee had published no articles since graduation from law school, as of
December 18, 1997. Prof. Martin was a recognized national expert in EEO law, had helped
develop national policy in the area at the EEOC and had taught it for four years. The junior
selectee had limited experience in EEO law and had never previously taught it.
In addition to the advertised EEO position filled by the junior visiting professor, Dean Bullock left
at least three additional faculty positions vacant, rather than to allow the Appointments
Committee to consider Prof. Martin for one of them. At the same time, students were clamoring
for courses and protesting the fact that there were not enough courses for them to meet their
graduation requirements, nor were there enough professors to teach them. Appointments
Committee member, Prof. Nolan, testified that she directly asked Dean Bullock whether there
were any additional vacancies so that the Committee could recommend that Prof. Martin fill one
of them. Dean Bullock actually lied to Prof. Nolan, telling her that there were no more
vacancies. In her Answer to the Complaint, Dean Bullock admitted that, in fact, there were at
least three tenure-track vacancies at the time.
It is also worth noting that, while Prof. Martin was removed from the faculty, the same
Appointments Committee, during the same year, granted tenure to Prof. Reginald L. Robinson,
despite complaints that Prof. Robinson's "sexual jokes," which he repeatedly e-mailed to faculty
and staff, were offensive and might cause Howard to be faced with a claim of hostile work
environment on the basis of gender. This and other events at that time reflected Howard Law
extreme insensitivity to issues of sex discrimination and sexual harassment, as well as a disregard
for accountability, under the law, for sexual harassment.
For years, Howard claimed that the junior visiting professor selected had her article published, as
of December 18, 1997, when the Appointments Committee selected her to take over the Equal
Employment Opportunity (EEO) Law class that Prof. Martin had been teaching at Howard for
the previous two years. In fact, this selectee, junior visiting professor's article, was not actually
published until a year later, in the Winter of 1998. For years, while withholding discovery until it
was held in Contempt of Court in 2002, Howard also claimed that Prof. Martin's article was not
even completed, as of December 18, 1997; however, once deposed, all of the members of the
Appointments Committee testified that they actually knew that Prof. Martin's article was not only
completed by that date, but also accepted for publication as of that date. Prof. Martin's article
was published, by the New York University Journal of Law and Policy, at the same time as was
the junior visiting professor, in the Winter of 1997. Prof. Martin also had published prior to
joining Howard's faculty -- which Howard acknowledged on its own website and in the memo
recommending Prof. Martin's hire two years earlier. The selectee had published no articles since
graduation from law school, as of December 18, 1997. Prof. Martin was a recognized national
expert in EEO law, had helped develop national policy in the area at the EEOC and had taught it
for four years. The junior selectee had limited experience in EEO law and had never previously
taught it.
In addition to the advertised EEO position filled by the junior visiting professor, Dean Bullock left
at least three additional faculty positions vacant, rather than to allow the Appointments
Committee to consider Prof. Martin for one of them. At the same time, students were clamoring
for courses and protesting the fact that there were not enough courses for them to meet their
graduation requirements, nor were there enough professors to teach them. Appointments
Committee member, Prof. Nolan, testified that she directly asked Dean Bullock whether there
were any additional vacancies so that the Committee could recommend that Prof. Martin fill one
of them. Dean Bullock actually lied to Prof. Nolan, telling her that there were no more
vacancies. In her Answer to the Complaint, Dean Bullock admitted that, in fact, there were at
least three tenure-track vacancies at the time. Ms. Martin presented the jury with a Chart of
Howard's ever-changing and conflicting purported defenses to its refusal to renew her contract.
| Law Offices of Dawn V. Martin, LLC Martin v. Howard University The Bizarre Facts of the Case |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |