MartinvHowardUTrialandVerdict

Law Offices of Dawn V. Martin, LLC
Martin v. Howard University,
The Trial and Jury Verdict

The Trial and Jury Verdict in Martin v. Howard University , 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19516 (D.
C. 1999 ) are summarized below. The entire trial transcript is uploaded on this website and
accessed at MartinvHowardU.

THE TRIAL
When Martin v. Howard University finally went to trial, in April of 2006. Howard never
disputed the specific conduct of Harrison. Instead, Howard first argued that the harassment
was minor, rather than severe and pervasive, and did not create a hostile work environment
for Prof. Martin; however, after Howard's own administrators -- including Dean Bullock and
Associate Dean Newsom, as well as Howard's own campus security officers and D.C. MPD
detective testified that Prof. Martin's fear of Harrison was well founded, Howard next argued
that it took reasonable measures to end the harassment. When called upon to produce
evidence of such reasonable steps however, Howard could not do so. Instead, Dean Bullock
admitted that she did nothing to ban Harrison from the campus and never even discussed the
matter with the Director of Howard Security, although she had written, in a December 1,
1997 memo to Prof. Martin, that she was enlisting the Director's assistance to address the
stalking.

For years into this litigation, Howard falsely 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.

THE JURY VERDICT
The jury agreed with Prof. Martin, that Harrison's harassment of her was severe and
pervasive, creating a hostile work environment for her. Jury Verdict, Questions # 1(a). The
Jury Verdict Form page 1, reads:

1. Did the Plaintiff prove by a preponderance of the evidence that:

a) Mr. Harrison subjected her to conduct that was sufficiently severe and pervasive to alter
the terms and conditions of her employment?
__X___ YES        ______ NO

b) Mr. Harrison’s conduct was unwelcome?
__X___ YES        ______ NO

c) Mr. Harrison’s conduct was sexual in nature or because of Plaintiff’s gender?
______ YES        __X__ NO

d) Howard University knew or should have known of the alleged conduct?
__X___ YES        ______ NO

e) Howard University failed to take proper remedial action that was reasonably calculated to
end the harassment?
__X___ YES        ______ NO

Jury Verdict, Question # 1(a)-(e). See also discussion in Ms. Martin's Appellate Brief , pages
8-9; 11-23; Amicus Brief of the National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL), pages 9-
17.

The jury also concluded that Howard knew or should have known of Harrison's harassment,
bu failed to take proper remedial action to end it. Jury Verdict, Questions # 1(d)-(e);
however, oddly, and contradicting Judge Hogan's finding of law in his 1999 decision , the jury
determined that the harassment was not "sexual in nature" or based on her sex/gender. Jury
Verdict, Questions # 1(c). The answer to 1(c) determined the entire Title VII case and
resulted in a verdict for the defendant. There is no federal of D.C. Statute prohibiting
discrimination against stalking victims. (New York is one state that does have an anti-
retaliation stalking victims' statute.) Title VII only applies if the harassment is based on race,
sex, color, national origin or religion. Although some jurisdictions have upheld "wrongful
discharge" claims where plaintiffs have been retaliated against for being victims of stalking,
domestic violence or other violent acts, neither the district court or the Appellate Court in
Martin recognized the argument, although both Ms. Martin and NAWL made the argument in
their Briefs.

The jury’s answer to the question of whether Harrison harassed Plaintiff based on her sex
disposed of this case, both with respect to Plaintiff’s sexual harassment/hostile work
environment case and her retaliation case. Because the jury found no “protected activity,”
Title VII could not be invoked to prevent Howard from retaliating against Prof. Martin -- even
if Howard decided not to renew her specifically and expressly because she asked for
protection from the serial campus stalked in her workplace. This ruling of law allows an
employer to legally retaliate against a stalking victim without violating Title VII, even where,
as here, the stalker harassed Prof. Martin and other women who fit the professional profile of
his ideal "wife," to try to convince them to become his "wife."The jury was clearly confused
about the definition of sexual harassment and harassment on the basis of sex, as indicated by
its request for additional instruction on the legal definition of sexual harassment. See Jury
Request for additional instruction. The judge refused to provide the requested additional
instruction.

In 1999, the district court judge said that it was "clear" that Harrison harassed Prof. Martin
based on her sex –but seven years later, after all of the evidence was presented at trial, the
same judge suddenly submitted the question to the jury. Howard argued that stalking -- even
here, where the stalker harassed Prof. Martin and other women to become his "wife" -- was
separate and distinct from sexual harassment, and not covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination and harassment on the basis of sex/gender.
Based on confusing jury instructions on the law of sexual harassment, and what they
understood the law to be, the jurors concluded that Harrison’ stalking was not sexual in nature
or based on Prof. Martin's gender. That meant that there is no statute to protect her from
being stalked in her workplace or from being fired for reporting it.

Ms. Martin presented the jury with a Chart of Howard's ever-changing and conflicting
purported defenses to its refusal to renew her contract.

Shocking trial testimony came from Prof. Isaiah Leggett, the then Chair of the Appointments
Committee, now the County Executive for Montgomery County, Maryland and reputed to be
a contender for Governor of the State of Maryland. Adding yet another changing defense to
Howard's list, Ike Leggett attempted to defend against charges of sex discrimination and
retaliation with an admission of age discrimination. He actually testified that he voted to reject
Prof. Martin, in favor of the less experienced applicant, to give the "young rookie" a chance.
He compared law professors to football players. Prof. Leggett was the Director of the
County Human Rights Division for ten years and has built his political career on portraying
himself as a civil rights advocate; yet, not only did he participate in covering up Bullock's
retaliatory actions against Prof. Martin for reporting sexual harassment, but he personally
admitted to committing illegal age discrimination.

HOWARD'S DEFENSES HAVE CONSISTED OF FRAUDS UPON THE COURT FOR
ELEVEN YEARS
In addition to Dean Bullock's perjury regarding her understanding that Harrison's harassment
was directed at women, such as Prof. Martin -- and not men, as discussed above, Dean
Bullock's July 1, 1998 memo to Howard's General Counsel, claimed that she took a number of
precautionary measures, including involving Howard's campus security force in developing a
plan to protect Prof. Martin and other women at risk on campus; however, when Ms. Martin
was finally permitted to depose Dean Bullock and Howard security officers in 2002, after
Howard defied numerous discovery orders and was held in contempt for withholding
discovery, Bullock admitted that she never even discussed the stalking with the Director of
Campus Security or any other security or police officer, while Prof. Martin was teaching at
Howard. Her admissions contradicted her July 1, 1999 written representations to Howard's
General Counsel and her December 1, 1997 memo to Prof. Martin, in response to her
November 25, 1997 memo asking for protection from the stalking.

As discussed above, for years into the litigation, 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 Law class that
Prof. Martin had been teaching at Howard for the previous two years. In fact, this junior
professor's article was not actually published until a year later, in the Winter of 1998. 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 , "911: How Will Police and
Fire Departments Respond to Public Safety Needs and the Americans with Disabilities Act?"
was published at the same time as was the junior visiting professor, in the Winter of 1997.

TRIAL COURT FILINGS DETAILING FACTS AND LEGAL ARGUMENTS
The trial of this case was first delayed due to Howard University's refusal to produce
discovery. In 2002, the court finally held Howard in Contempt of Court for its violation of
three court orders to produce valid discovery. The documents and deposition testimony
produced as part of the discovery process revealed that Howard could not produce evidence
to dispute Ms. Martin's allegations and, in fact, confirmed her material allegations. Ms. Martin
therefore filed a Motion for Summary Judgment , accompanied by a Statement of Undisputed
Material Facts, in October of 2002. See also Martin's Reply to Howard University's
Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment , Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's Statement of Disputed Material Facts .

Ms. Martin moved the Court to Strike Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment because it
relied on testimony specifically excluded from the record; however, the Magistrate Judge
ignored her motion and his own order and considered Howard's Motion for Summary
Judgment relying on precluded testimony. See Martin's Motion to Strike Defendant's Motion
for Summary Judgment and Reply to Howard's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Strike.
Ms. Martin waited three years for the Court to decide the cross-motions for summary
judgment. It never decided her Motion to Strike Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment .

After trial, but before filing the appeal, Ms. Martin filed motions for judgment on all of her
claims, as a matter of law, asking the Court to set aside the jury verdict. See Plaintiff's
Motion for Judgment on her Sexual Harassment Claim, and Reply; Plaintiff's Motion for
Judgment on her Retaliation Claims and Reply; Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on her Breach
of Contract Claim and Reply.   Howard also filed motions for judgment on all claims, even
though the jury verdict was in its favor. See Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for
Judgment on Plaintiff's Sexual Harassment Claim; Pl aintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion
for Judgment on her Retaliation Claims; Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for
Judgment on her Breach of Contract Claim.

DELAYS AND PROCEDURAL OBSTACLES
Ms. Martin understands what is it like to experience illegal retaliation, having been left to start
her career from the bottom of the ladder, after working for seventeen years to reach the
height of her career. As a single mother who lost her source of support and income at age
40, she understands that, despite any monetary relief that may eventually be granted, the is no
remedy that can restore to plaintiffs or their families for the lost years of financial hardship
and damage to the quality of life caused by illegal discrimination.

This case demonstrates, among other things, the incredible delay that a plaintiff must endure
while awaiting justice and the loss of the quality of life and family while the plaintiff waits for
remedial relief. The case was delayed largely due to Howard University's refusal to produce
discovery, which they only produced after three court orders to do so and being held in
Contempt of Court in 2002. It also demonstrates the need for severe sanctions against parties
and attorneys that base their litigation on fraudulent defenses and withhold evidence -- for
years -- that prove its claims to be false.

Defendants often have mammoth financial resources. Such was the case with Howard, as
evidenced by its retention of four consecutive outside law firms, in addition to its own Office
of General Counsel, to litigate against Ms. Martin, who has been pro se throughout most of
this litigation. At trial, Howard had four of its attorneys sitting at counsel table and additional
attorneys in the audience. While Howard had its choice of any major law firm in town, and
could -- and did -- substitute lawyers as it pleased, Ms. Martin has had to accept
representation by solo practitioners who were ill equipped to challenge Howard’s battalion of
lawyers. It was very difficult for Ms. Martin to find a local attorney that would take on
Howard and all of the vast resources -- no doubt, millions of dollars -- that it has chosen to
"sink" into this particular case, against Ms. Martin, representing herself, with extremely limited
resources, throughout most of this litigation.

Ms. Martin handled her case herself (pro se), conducting all discovery herself and making all
of the arguments that withstood Howard's multiple motions to dismiss and for summary
judgment over a period of seven years; however, she did not want to put herself on the stand
at trial or otherwise represent herself at trial. She therefore retained counsel for the purpose
of trial. These lawyers were overwhelmed by Howard’s many attorneys, as well as the
adverse rulings by the trial Judge. During the trial, Ms. Martin’s first lawyer, a Howard Law
graduate, actually quit, in the middle of trial, and required Ms. Martin and her paralegal to go
to his office and immediately retrieve all of her files. He reported that “lawyers all over town”
were calling him during the trial, urging him to quit. Docket #432, Pl’s Motion for an
Extension of the 25 Hour Time Limitation to Complete Trial, at 8-12 See also Appellant's
March 11, 2008 Motion for Sanctions against Howard University at 10-11, for its false
representations to the Court of Appeals in its Brief.

After her first counsel quit, Ms. Martin requested that she be permitted to complete the trial
herself, but Judge Hogan coerced her into taking back the attorney who quit, although he no
longer even had her files in his possession, stating that he did not want her to put herself on
the stand. Under this pressure, Ms. Martin retained the only attorney who was willing to
enter the case in the middle of trial -- an inexperienced attorney who had no opportunity to
prepare for her first trial. This replacement attorney experienced medical problems during the
trial which rendered her medically incompetent to continue as counsel.

Ms. Martin completed the last two days of the three and a half week trial herself, making her
own closing argument, cross-examining the final witness and putting herself on the stand
briefly to rebut the testimony of this final witness. At Howard's request and over Ms.
Martin's vehement objection, Judge Hogan told the jury that Ms. Martin had "discharged" both
of her lawyers and opted to represent herself. Ms. Martin challenged this instruction on
appeal, but the Appellate Panel failed to address the evidence of record regarding the
withdrawal of these two attorneys; instead, the Appellate Panel simply repeated Judge Hogan's
erroneous assertion that Ms. Martin discharged both of her lawyers.

Judge Hogan forced Ms. Martin to speak of herself in the third person and to talk to herself
on the stand, asking herself questions. On appeal, Ms. Martin argued that this requirement
was improper and prejudicial, particularly since the judge did not inform the jury that he was
requiring Ms. Martin to speak of herself in that manner. Ms. Martin cited case law
recognizing that people who speak of themselves in the third-person appear to be mentally
unstable. This perception decreases the witness' credibility in the eyes of the jury. The Court
of Appeals did not address this argument.

The appeals process was extraordinarily delayed because the Court Reporter, who is a
member of Judge Hogan's staff, actually withheld transcripts from Ms. Martin that she had
paid for in advance. Some of these transcripts were completed and even docketed, but kept
in Judge Hogan's chambers, rather than in the Clerk's office for the public to access them.
See Plaintiff's Motion to Integrate Plaintiff's Direct Trial Testimony into the Official, Certified
Transcript .   E-mail correspondence between Howard's counsel, the Court Reporter and Ms.
Mart in also reveals that, while withholding the transcripts from Ms. Martin, the Court
Reporter was corresponding with Howard's counsel, requesting Howard's assistance "to
complete the transcripts."

Although the Court of Appeals did sanction the Court Reporter , (on December 19, 2006,
reducing her fee by 20%) for late production of the transcripts, no additional inquiry was
made, or sanction imposed, regarding the evidence of collusion between Howard's attorneys
and the Court Reporter regarding the transcripts. See E-mail correspondence between
Howard's counsel, the Court Reporter and Ms. Martin . Ms. Martin filed motions in an effort
to obtain some means of verifying the accuracy of the transcripts produced, in light of the
apparent collusion between the Court reporter and Howard University. In its March 7, 2007
Order, the Court of Appeals informed the parties that no audiotape of the trial was taken in
this three and a half week trial. The Court Reporter was not required to produce her own
tape recording of the trial; accordingly, Ms. Martin was deprived of any means of correcting
errors or even deliberate corruption of the trial transcript.