U. sued over handling of harassment case

Former student alleges negligence in two suits and Andrew Rafalaf Former University student Lisa Topol, who has accused Assistant English Professor Malcolm Woodfield of sexual harassment, filed suit against the University in federal district court yesterday. The suit alleges that the University has continually postponed the hearing process involving Woodfield, and asks for monetary compensation on the basis of psychological and emotional injury among other items. Topol also filed suit against Bates College, where Woodfield taught for two years before arriving at the University, for withholding information of other sexual harassment accusations against Woodfield. In the lawsuit against the University, Topol charges that administrators "failed to investigate her complaints, or otherwise take any action to determine whether or not there existed grounds to suspend or terminate Woodfield." After Topol initially complained about Woodfield to the Ombudsman's office in March of last year, the suit states that the University "actively discouraged" her from obtaining outside counsel. The suit also states that the University said they would represent her. According to the suit, Woodfield admitted to Topol's complete account of the relationship except for one detail in a meeting with former Ombudsman Daniel Perlmutter and Assistant Ombudsman Gulbun O'Connor. The suit continues to say that the University urged Topol to file her complaint with the College Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility and promised that the matter would be resolved by last summer. "Dean Stevens failed to forward a complaint concerning Woodfield to the [Committee] until August, 1993, a full five months after Ms. Topol reported Woodfield's conduct to the Assistant Ombudsman," the suit states. Stevens refused to comment on the case last night. Topol charges that after the Committee received the complaint, it did not respond within 20 days, which is required by Section 10.4(c) of the University Policies and Procedures. Not until November of last year did the Committee decide that just cause existed to formally charge Woodfield of sexual harassment, the suit states. In addition, the suit alleges that Woodfield failed to respond to the Committee's formal complaint and did so again after being given a second chance. Woodfield did not return several phone calls placed to his home last night. The suit states that by failing to respond to the Committee's complaint, Woodfield forfeited his right to be involved in the hearings against him and the University proceeded to set a hearing date in early February. But, the University decided to cancel the hearing because it wanted Woodfield to attend, Topol alleges. "[The University] finally set hearing dates in April, 1994, more than a year after Ms. Topol lodged her complaint with the Ombudsman," the suit charges. Topol's lawyer, Alice Ballard, said her client is frustrated with the University's handling of her complaint. "She's hoping that the suit will prompt [the University] to do something in the case," said Ballard. "[The University] has acted as though [the Woodfield case] were nothing but a pain in the neck." The suit against the University asks that Topol be compensated for "wages and fringe benefits" that she has lost due to her relationship with Woodfield and for wages that she is "likely to lose." The suit also asks that the University pay Topol for "anguish and humiliation, physical and mental pain and suffering, and loss of life's pleasures." Along with outlining the University's alleged mishandling of the Woodfield case, the suit also describes the relationship between Woodfield and Topol and concurs with a draft of a letter Stevens wrote to the Committee last August. As a student in Woodfield's class, "The British Novel: 1660-present," in the fall of 1992, Topol was repeatedly complimented and flattered by Woodfield in front of the class and in private, the suit contends. Near the end of the semester, Woodfield allowed Topol to take an oral examination that was not available to the rest of the class, both the suit and Stevens' letter state. At that exam, which took only 10 minutes, Woodfield allegedly made "sexually suggestive remarks" and asked her help in developing a course load by having her read a book, according to the complaint. Woodfield and Topol met again on December 21, 1992 when Woodfield kissed Topol, the suit states. It continues to say that later the same evening, Woodfield called her and told her that he wanted to "enter into a sexual relationship." The suit also states that the two met for lunch, at which point Topol expressed her concern over taking a course from Woodfield in the spring. Woodfield "persuaded" Topol to stay in the class, which she was already registered for, and also mentioned that she received an "A" in his fall course, the suit states. Upon returning from winter break in January 1993, Woodfield and Topol became sexually involved, the letter and suit details. "Professor Woodfield and Ms. Topol engaged in sexual intercourse in his office and, on two occasions, in her dormitory room," the suit states. The suit continues that the two engaged in role playing where Woodfield played the teacher and assigned Topol, his student, sexual "homework." Woodfield also "spanked" Topol with a crop or whip, the suit adds. The suit alleges that Woodfield was verbally abusive to Topol, "subjecting [Topol] to profanity and denigrating language." Speaking about the lawsuit against the University, Ballard said, "The case isn't about Woodfield, it's about an institutional failure to respond and deal with a problem that's right under their noses." Ballard added that she believes Bates College, the institution where Woodfield taught from 1989 to 1991, is partly responsible for the present situation. The suit against Bates College states that the college withheld information pertaining to student accusations of sexual harassment against Woodfield. "In the fall of 1990, when Woodfield was on the faculty at Bates College and when Bates sent positive references for Woodfield to the University of Pennsylvania, Bates College was aware of student complaints of sexual harassment by Woodfield," the suit against Bates states. In the spring of 1991, Bates began formal administrative proceedings against Woodfield on the basis of the student complaints, the suit continues. Steven Hochstadt, a member of the Community Relations Counsel at Bates College, did not want to comment on Bates' dealings with Woodfield. Hochstadt did agree, though, that "there was something going on" involving Woodfield. When Bates found out that Woodfield was offered a job at the University, the suit continues, they terminated the proceedings and only "verbally reprimanded" him. Bates College failed to inform the University of the complaints and the subsequent proceedings and also failed to update the positive references it had previously offered, the suit charges. "What Bates did was absolutely reprehensible," Ballard said. "I think it's completely foreseeable that what happened at Bates would happen at Penn." While the University was investigating the current accusations of sexual harassment, the suit states, Bates College still failed to inform the University of "Woodfield's prior sexual conduct in relation to female students." Bates College Associate Dean of Faculty John Pribram said he did not know anything about the charges against Woodfield. "I was not aware of any proceedings [against Woodfield] and I have not heard anything about this," he said. Pribram has only been working at Bates for a year and a half, and began only after Woodfield left. Martha Crunkelton, dean of faculty at Bates College, could not be reached for comment last night.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.