There are accounts here and here (sent by numerous readers); an excerpt:
A Medill junior is suing Northwestern, alleging the school failed to act after she filed a sexual assault complaint against a professor two years ago.
The lawsuit claims the University handled the allegations with “deliberate indifference and retaliation,” according to a copy of the lawsuit obtained by The Daily.
The student said philosophy Prof. Peter Ludlow sexually assaulted her following a downtown Chicago art show the two attended together in February 2012. According to the suit, filed Monday, Ludlow bought the student alcohol and ignored her repeated requests to return to Evanston, taking her to his apartment where she lost consciousness. The student said she regained consciousness early the next morning in Ludlow’s bed....
The student reported the case to a faculty member, who passed it on to Joan Slavin, director of the Office of Sexual Harassment Prevention. After investigating, the lawsuit says, Slavin found Ludlow “engaged in unwelcome and inappropriate sexual advances,” including “sleeping with his arms on and around (the student) on the night of February 10-11.”
About two days after the assault, the lawsuit says, the student attempted suicide.
Since then, according to the lawsuit, she has suffered continued severe health effects. She was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and remained in the hospital for about three days.
Kristin Case, Ludlow's attorney, said Monday night the professor "denies all of (the) allegations contained" in the complaint. Ludlow is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit.
"Out of respect for all parties involved we have no further comment," Case wrote in an email to The Daily.
The suit says the University formed a committee to determine disciplinary action against Ludlow. The committee recommended NU fire him, but the suit alleges NU ignored the committee’s decision....
The lawsuit is against the University, not against Ludlow.
UPDATE: A couple of readers asked why the student might have sued only the University, and not Ludlow. This was also being discussed on Facebook earlier. With the caveats that (1) I have no insider knowledge about any of this (I know only what is in the public record), and (2) I am not a specialist on Title IX or sexual harassment law (readers might consult an earlier post with information bout Title IX from Professor Heidi Lockwood), here is my surmise. The advantages of suing the University rather than the alleged assailant are (1) the University has more resources with which to satisfy a judgment, and since the damages alleged appear to be very substantial that is an important consideration; and (2) against the University, the plaintiff does not need to prove the sexual assault occurred, only that the University failed in its Title IX obligations given its own findings in the matter. Not having to litigate the sexual assault itself is advantageous for two perhaps obvious reasons: first, that would be a much more emotionally unpleasant experience for the plaintiff; and second, it would likely be highly contentious given that Ludlow, through his attorney, has denied all the allegations. The obvious disadvantage of suing the University is that it also has more substantial resources with which to defend itself. An unknown factor (unknown to me) is the extent to which a Title IX claim increases the likelihood of the plaintiff recovering both attorney fees and perhaps punitive damages (as well as compensatory damages); I believe Title IX does provide the former, but not always the latter. I am happy to be corrected by anyone better-informed; please e-mail me and I will add the information, including links.
ANOTHER: A law professor colleague elsewhere writes:
1. In a Title IX suit against the university, the plaintiff will have to prove that she was subjected to discriminatory harassment *and* that the university was deliberately indifferent to it. There may be more to the story, but from the news articles it looks like the alleged assault is the only act of harassment alleged here, so I think the plaintiff will have to prove that the assault occurred.
2. A prevailing plaintiff under Title IX will be entitled to recover attorneys' fees, but (per the Supreme Court's decision in Barnes v. Gorman) not punitive damages.
This colleague went on to explain that, "I don't see how she can prevail unless she proves that the harassment actually occurred. As a practical matter, though, if she proves that the university itself found that the harassment occurred, it will be hard for the university to deny its own conclusion. Not impossible, but hard. That's another good reason, in addition to the deep-pockets concern, for suing the university but not Ludlow."
Recent Comments