Jury's Verdict Expected Today in Erulkar Harassment Suit

   By Brian Rosenberg
   
   Editor in Chief
   
   Jury deliberations began yesterday in the harassment suit that Marina
   R. Erulkar SM '92 has brought against Professor of Management Gabriel
   R. Bitran and MIT. A verdict is expected sometime today.
   
   Erulkar claims Bitran sexually harassed her by kissing her while she
   worked in his office at the Sloan School of Management, that he probed
   excessively into her personal life, and that MIT was responsible for
   his actions and did not respond properly when she filed a complaint
   against Bitran.
   
   The deliberations began after attorneys for all three parties gave
   their closing arguments, and Judge Elizabeth Butler instructed the
   jury in the applicable law.
   
   In his closing, Robert Sullivan, MIT's attorney, attempted to
   discredit Erulkar's testimony. He pointed out ways in which he felt
   her description of events had changed since she first filed a
   complaint against Bitran. He also reminded the jury that Erulkar
   admitted overstating the cost of her medical expenses on an MIT
   financial aid form in order to get money to pay for her visits to a
   psychiatrist.
   
   Bitran's attorney, John Kahn, focused on the idea that the
   relationship between Erulkar and Bitran was a mutually beneficial one.
   He suggested that Erulkar's reaction to Bitran's actions did not cause
   any change in her work status, as she continued on most of the
   projects she had been working on previously. He also said the events
   immediately leading up to Erulkar's filing of a complaint on June 5,
   1990 were not sexual in nature, and that her complaint could not then
   be for sexual harassment.
   
   Barbara Johnson, Erulkar's lawyer, described Erulkar's experiences as
   a "betrayal of trust, both by Bitran and by MIT." She also claimed
   that MIT was trying to cover up many aspects of the situation. To
   support this, she cited the fact that notebooks prepared for the case
   by MITofficials were prepared months after the events described in
   them took place. Judge Butler instructed the jury, however, that the
   time of the notebooks' creation should not be a factor in deciding
   their weight in the case.
   
   Johnson said that while the professional relationship between Bitran
   and Erulkar may have been beneficial, it was his personal actions that
   caused her so much grief and anguish. She also said that the
   experience Erulkar lost as a result of not working for Bitran left her
   unable to find a job after graduating from Sloan.
   
   To rule in favor of Erulkar, Butler instructed, at least 11 of the 13
   jurors must find that Bitran, MIT, or both violated at least one of
   two Massachusetts statutes. The first, Chapter 151b, prohibits sexual
   harassment which is "so severe and pervasive that it creates a
   humiliating, hostile, or sexually offensive atmosphere in the
   workplace."
   
   The second, Chapter 93, prohibits an employer from refusing to enter
   into a contract or otherwise changing the contractual relationship
   with an employee because of the employee's gender.
   
   The burden of proof for the jury's decision is lower than the "beyond
   a reasonable doubt" that applies in criminal cases. To rule for
   Erulkar in this civil suit, the jury needs only to find that a "fair
   preponderance of the evidence" supports her claims, Butler said.
   
   To rule that Bitran sexually harassed Erulkar, the jury must find that
   a "reasonable person" in her place would have found that his actions
   created a work environment matching the description in Chapter 151b.
   To find that MIT is responsible for his actions, the jury must
   conclude that MIT either assisted in or contributed to the creation of
   that environment, or that MIT delegated decisions about Erulkar's
   employment to Bitran.
   
   If the jury finds either Bitran or MIT in violation of the law, it can
   decide to award compensatory and punitive damages. Compensatory
   damages are intended to "restore the victim to the financial situation
   she would have been in" if Bitran's behavior had not occurred, Butler
   said.
   
   Punitive damages may be awarded if the jury finds that Bitran's or
   MIT's actions were "outrageous," Butler instructed. Punitive damages
   are intended to deter similar action in the future. Butler indicated
   that there would be a $20,000 cap on the amount of punitive damages
   that could be assessed against MIT because of its status as a
   non-profit organization. 
   

----
Copyright 1992 by The Tech. All rights reserved.
This story was published on Tuesday, November 1, 1992.
Volume 112, Number 54
The story began on page  1
and jumped to page  7.

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.