Erulkar Loses Harassment Lawsuit; Community Criticizes MIT's Policies By Brian Rosenberg Allegations of sexual harassment and questions about MIT's handling of those allegations captured the community's attention when Marina R. Erulkar SM '92 sued MIT and Professor of Management Gabriel R. Bitran. Erulkar claimed that Bitran sexually harassed her both by kissing her several times and by probing excessively into her personal life. She also claimed that MIT was responsible for Bitran's actions and that the Institute improperly handled an internal complaint she filed. Though Bitran was cleared of any wrongdoing after two weeks of testimony, the decision did not put the harassment issue to rest. Instead, the case inspired two protests and focused critical attention on MIT's guidelines for dealing with sexual harassment. This criticism contributed to MIT's decision to revise its sexual harassment guide. The revised guide is due out in a few months. THE TWO WORKED CLOSELY Erulkar began working in Bitran's office as a temporary secretarial employee in the middle of 1988. She became a full-time administrative assistant in July 1989, working under Area Administrator Kim C. LePage. During the trial, Erulkar testified that she spent about 85 percent of her time at work with Bitran and often worked long hours and on weekends. The two enjoyed a close working relationship, but during the summer of 1989, Bitran began asking her about her personal life. She put off answering his questions until the fall, when she briefly described a sister's illness and said the subject should not be discussed further. Erulkar testified that Bitran first kissed her on Dec. 29, the last day of work before the New Year's holiday. The kiss left her "completely shocked... like I couldn't move," and Bitran quickly kissed her again, she said. When she returned to work on Jan. 2, 1990, Erulkar said, Bitran said he was confused because his feelings for her were becoming romantic, and had kissed her because he felt she had returned his feelings. After she explained that his behavior was unwelcome, he said he would take care of his feelings, she testified. Erulkar testified that Bitran kissed her twice more, sometime in March and again in late April or early May. She said she was unsure of the exact date of the March incident because she had "blocked" the details from her memory. TESTIMONIES DIFFERED Bitran's account diverged from Erulkar's on a few details. Bitran said he kissed Erulkar three times and that the kisses were friendly, instantaneous, and took place with closed lips and no other bodily contact. Each of the kisses came on a "special occasion," Bitran said. The New Year's holiday was one, and the others were Jan. 29, her birthday, and in March when she found out she had been admitted to the master's degree program at the Sloan School of Management. Erulkar said that Bitran questioned her about her personal life throughout this period, and that his queries made her uncomfortable. On June 5, Erulkar and LePage visited Special Assistant to the President Mary P. Rowe, who handles many harassment cases for the Institute. The three decided that Erulkar should meet with Lester C. Thurow, dean of the Sloan School. Erulkar testified that Thurow was insensitive to her complaint and suggested that she return to work with Bitran. Rowe was compelled to testify during the trial, the first time she has been so ordered while dealing with harassment. Her testimony included information about both the specifics of Erulkar's visit and general information on the complaints she receives. After deliberating for just over one day, the 13 jurors ruled on Nov. 3 that Bitran's actions did not constitute sexual harassment. A few weeks after the ruling, Erulkar announced she would appeal the decision based on the wording of Judge Elizabeth Butler's instructions to the jurors. Erulkar and her attorney, Barbara Johnson, specifically questioned the inclusion of the word "severe" in the standard for determining whether harassment had occurred. DECISION STIRS CONTROVERSY Seven people entered a class taught by Bitran on Nov. 16 carrying posters with statements made by Bitran and others in connection with the suit. The seven filed to the back of the room and held up their posters in silence. Bitran "needs to know he can't get away with what he did," said Kyra Raphaelidis '94, one of the protesters. Other harassers "need to know that their behavior will not be tolerated," she added. Two Campus Police officers were waiting outside the door when the protesters left, and two more arrived a few minutes later. Police pressed the protesters for identification for a few minutes before releasing them. Bitran's students were largely critical of the protesters for imposing "vigilante justice" and denying them access to a class they had already paid for. Four days later, over 150 members of the MIT community gathered on the steps of 77 Massachusetts Ave. to rally against sexual harassment. "We're here to express our anger at MIT for not having a good sexual harassment policy," said Corinna E. Lathan G, one of the rally's organizers. A petition calling for improved and more specific sexual harassment guidelines and more uniform grievance procedures gathered 181 signatures at the rally. After the rally, approximately 50 chanting protesters presented the petition to President Charles M. Vest. Both Erulkar and her attorney spoke at the rally. While Erulkar spoke, eight counter-protesters held up signs with slogans such as "Quit Your Bitching," "She Wanted It," and "Stop Harassment of Bitran." Erulkar said during her speech that the signs could not bother her after all she had been through. The counterprotesters, who described themselves as New Right Wing, said they thought Bitran was being treated unfairly. They generated considerable negative reaction. "I thought they were disgusting. ... Every single poster they had put the blame on the victim," said Gargi Sircar '93, a bystander at the rally. _________________________________________________________________ Copyright 1993 by The Tech. All rights reserved. This story was published on Friday, January 29, 1993. Volume 113, Year in Review The story was printed on page 6. This article may be freely distributed electronically, provided it is distributed in its entirety and includes this notice, but may not be reprinted without the express written permission of The Tech. Write to archive@the-tech.mit.edu for additional details. _________________________________________________________________