Ravina v. Columbia Univ.

Decision Date31 March 2019
Docket NumberNo. 16-CV-2137 (RA),16-CV-2137 (RA)
PartiesENRICHETTA RAVINA, Plaintiff, v. COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY and GEERT BEKAERT, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
OPINION & ORDER

RONNIE ABRAMS, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Enrichetta Ravina, a former junior faculty member at Columbia Business School, brought this action against Geert Bekaert, a tenured member of the faculty, and Columbia University for, inter alia, gender discrimination and retaliation in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"), N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(1)(a), (7). After a fifteen-day trial, a jury found that Ravina failed to prove that either Defendant had discriminated against her, but that Bekaert had retaliated against her for accusing him of sexual harassment, The jury awarded Ravina $750,000 in compensatory damages against Bekaert and Columbia,1 and $500,000 in punitive damages against Bekaert only. Before the Court are: (1) Bekaert's motion for judgment as a matter of law, or in the alternative, for a remittitur of the damages award or a new trial, (2) Ravina's motion for injunctive relief, and (3) Ravina's motion to seal a document submitted to the Court in connection with her motion for injunctive relief. For the reasons that follow, Bekaert's motion for judgment as a matter of law and Ravina's motion for injunctive relief,as well as her sealing request, are denied. Bekaert's motion for a remittitur of the damages award is granted.

BACKGROUND

Familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this case is assumed. The Court here provides a brief overview of the factual background that is relevant to the instant motions.

Ravina initiated this action against Columbia in March of 2016, alleging that Bekaert sexually harassed her and obstructed her research, and that Columbia failed to intervene in the harassment and denied her tenure in retaliation for reporting it. She brought claims against Columbia for, inter alia, sexual harassment, hostile work environment, discrimination and retaliation under the NYCHRL, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. In July of 2016, she filed an amended complaint adding Bekaert as a defendant to her NYCHRL claims.

In February and March of 2018, Bekaert and Columbia moved for summary judgment, The Court denied Bekaert's motion in its entirety, and granted Columbia's motion in part. Specifically, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Columbia on the federal quid pro quo sexual harassment claims, as well as on the federal and city law discrimination claims to the extent that those claims alleged direct discrimination on the part of Columbia. The Court denied Columbia's motion with respect to the retaliation claims. The Court further held that the hostile work environment and discrimination claims against Columbia could proceed to the extent that they were based on Columbia's negligence, rather than on direct discrimination. Finally, the Court ruled that Bekaert was not Ravina's supervisor, and accordingly rejected any theory of liability predicated on that argument.

The trial, which was bifurcated into a liability phase and a damages phase, took place in July of 2018.

I. Liability Phase
A. Ravina's Testimony

During the liability phase of trial, Ravina testified first. She explained that she joined Columbia as an Assistant Professor in July of 2008, and that Bekaert was a senior tenured professor in her department. Tr. 118-19, 133. She described how she began working with Bekaert in 2009, when he approached her about an opportunity to work with him on a large data set belonging to Financial Engines, a company with which Bekaert had a relationship. Tr. 133-34. The data set concerned the savings habits of millions of Americans, and Ravina considered it to be valuable because of its size and its potential to generate numerous research projects. Tr. 135:19-25; 137:8-22. Bekaert and Ravina agreed to work together on the Financial Engines data, with Ravina taking on a larger role in preparing the data and performing the statistical analyses, and Bekaert taking on a larger role in writing the drafts. Tr. 136:13-17. In October of 2011, Bekaert and Ravina jointly entered into a research agreement with Financial Engines. Tr. 140:4-6; Pl's. Ex. 6. They received the data from Financial Engines in batches, with the final batch arriving in the summer of 2012. Tr. 142:13-143:19.

Ravina testified that the relationship between her and Bekaert began to change around that time. Whereas previously their relationship had been "mostly professional," in the summer of 2012 Bekaert began "talking more about personal stuff in [their] meetings" and inviting her to dinner. Tr. 153:8-154:4; Pl's. Ex. 8. At one dinner in September 2012, according to Ravina, Bekaert asked Ravina if she had a boyfriend and, when she exited the taxi that they shared on their way home, "passed his hand on [her] back and went down toward [her] butt." Tr. 162:1-19;162:24-163:8. Ravina testified that Bekaert would talk to her about his sex life, Tr. 164:17 - 165:3; 177:6, send her songs and play music for her, Tr. 168:25-169:2, and ask her for compliments, which she would occasionally pay him, Tr. 165:7-168:17. She further testified that Bekaert "told [Ravina] that [her] walk was sexy," Tr. 180:7-9, walked her home after a dinner and tried to kiss her, Tr. 197:2-25, held her hand at a restaurant, Tr. 199:5-8, and once stared at her breasts while they were working together in his office, Tr. 200:5-15. According to Ravina, these incidents were embarrassing and frustrating, because she believed that Bekaert's focus on sex was delaying the progress on their joint projects. Tr. 200:19-201:7; 206:3-207:5.

At one meeting in late 2013, Ravina testified, Bekaert told her, "If you were nicer to [me], your papers would move faster," to which Ravina replied that "[she] was already as nice as [she] could be." Tr. 209-210. Following that meeting, Bekaert became "aggressive" and "confrontational" and seemed to stall the progress of their joint papers. Tr. 213:10-20. In December 2013, for example, Bekaert sent Ravina an email in which he wrote that "while [he had] started nibbling away at the draft, [he would] not show [her] anything, as [she did] not seem to grasp the concept of an evolving work in progress." Tr. 211: 8-15; Pl's. Ex. 24. Ravina testified that it was "unheard of in the academic community for a professor to refuse to share a draft with a co-author, Tr. 212. She testified that Bekaert's refusal concerned her, and that she believed he was "turning" on her and "was not even participating in the work anymore." Tr. 213.

Sometime in the spring of 2014, Ravina went to Bekaert's office for a work-related matter. Tr. 218. When she got there, Bekaert told her to look at a mug that was sitting on his shelf. Tr. 219. She did, and she saw that it said, "I'm refined, I am a scholar, but . . . ." Tr. 219. Bekaert told her to look at the bottom of the mug and, when she did, she saw that it said "horny." Tr. 220. Bekaert "laughed and said that was true." Tr. 220. Also during the spring of 2014, Ravinatestified, Bekaert "started belittling [her] work [and her] professional status, [and] started saying that the data were wrong." Tr. 221. For example, Bekaert told Ravina that she was "insane," "crazy," and "had a masochistic desire to shoot [herself] in the foot." Tr. 221:19-22.

Ravina testified that she never explicitly told Bekaert that she felt he was harassing her, because she "didn't want to offend him." Tr. 225. She explained that Bekaert had told her about students and assistants who had complained about him in the past and had expressed to her that the complaints made him "really, really angry." Tr. 226. Ravina did, however, tell Bekaert that they needed to "reevaluate [their] working relationship" in order to make sure that they were treating each other professionally and with respect. Tr. 238:13-19; 241:11-15. She also proposed that they set a schedule for completing their joint work. Tr. 240. In response to that proposal, Bekaert wrote, among other things, "I CANNOT give you a schedule and asking for one is SILLY" and, "You fix it, or I am going to have to take drastic action." Tr. 241, Pl's. Ex. 36.

In May of 2014, Ravina brought her concerns about Bekaert to the Columbia administration. Joined by two senior professors, Tano Santos and Patrick Bolton, she met with the Senior Vice Dean of the faculty, Gita Johar, and told her that "a senior tenured professor in [her] division with whom [she] was collaborating was being abusive, vindictive, and belittling [her]." Tr. 246:14-247:6. Approximately one month later, Ravina reiterated her concerns to another Senior Vice Dean, Janet Horan, telling her that Bekaert was "aggressive and abusive," and that she was worried he would take the Financial Engines data from her. Tr. 250:4-7. Then, on June 16, 2014, Ravina met with Horan, Glenn Hubbard (the Dean), and Suzanne Goldberg, a Columbia law professor who is an expert on gender and law. Tr. 251:4-7. At that meeting, according to Ravina, she again told the administration that Bekaert was harassing her and being abusive. Tr. 251:20-22. Finally, on July 16, 2014, she met with Senior Vice Dean Kathy Phillips and told her "aboutthe dinner invitations, the continuous requests for compliments [and] the abusive language," as well as about her "worry that [Bekaert] would take away the data . . . [and] start stalling the progress" or "badmouth [her] in the profession." Tr. 256:20-21; 258:7-13.

Ravina testified that, after she complained about Bekaert to the Columbia administration, her relationship with Bekaert underwent a "drastic change." Tr. 260:20. Bekaert began to tell Ravina that her work was wrong and that she needed to complete "busy work," which in her view was not "important and integral to the paper." Tr. 260:4-265:4. For example, as "a condition for him to write a...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT