Sexual Harassment Suit Raises Questions

In May of 1991, L. Dodge Ferruled Jr., the assistant dean of the Extension School, wrote a desperate memorandum to his boss, Michael Shinagel.

"I write...with a sense of despair concerning the work environment of my supervisee, Delise Battenfield," Fernald said in the memo to Shinagel, dean of the Extension School and Quincy House master.

"There has been sexual harassment by a research advisor," the memo continues. "This problem has existed for several months and [Battenfield] has tried to tolerate it."

The memo goes on to ask Shinagel for an investigation of the harassment, but no such probe ever occurred.

Three years later, that memo has become an important piece of a sexual harassment lawsuit field by M. Delise Battenfield, a former Extension School student and employee, against the research advisor--Donald Ostrowski--and Harvard University.

Battenfield, a student and administrative assistant in the Extension School's master's program, alleges that Ostrowski, who coordinated students' research in the program and served as her husbands thesis adviser, sexually harassed her and other women at the school. Ostrowski has denied those charges.

But the memo buttresses an even more damaging contention of the Battenfield case: Extension school officials--including Shinagel--Knew about the allegations of harassment, and did nothing to fix the situation.

The University has fought this charge, using avariety of legal arguments and even Battenfield'smedical records from the University healthServices. and Harvard won a minor legal victorylast year when a Middle-sex County judge dismissedsome allegations in the civil suit.

Still, court documents in the case, which isscheduled to go to a trial in Middlesex CountyCourt on June 6, raise questions about how wellthe school responds to sexual harassmentcomplaints and treats employees and students.

For example, Fernald's memo charges that SueWeaver Schopf, coordinator of research advisorsfor the Extension School's master's program,verbally harassed Battenfield and broke promise ofconfidentiality to the student.

Neither the plaintiffs nor Extension Schoolofficials agreed to be interviewed for this story.Ostrowski and Shinagel did not return repeatedphone calls to their offices, and Shinagel wouldnot answer questions when reached at his residenceyesterday.

But depositions, affidavits, motions and, mostof all, internal Extension School memoranda painta stark--if incomplete--picture of the case.

One document that could become vital to thecase's outcome is another memo found in ExtensionSchool files. This letter, which was attached tothe Fernald memo, is not signed, but the documentwas sent to Shinagel and appears to have beenpenned by a school official.

"Is Delise aware that she has grounds to sueHarvard for megabucks?" it reads. "Not just anindividual for possible sexual harassment, but theUniversity (Extension School) for fostering aclimate of emotional harassment.

"I'd tell her to take a leave-of-absence,rather than leaving the Universityunconditionally; she needs some good advice (haveshe and her husband talked with a lawyer?), bothto preserve her rights and status as a Harvardemployee, as a Harvard degree-candidate, and,frankly, as a human being."

A Kiss?

In the fall of 1988, Ostrowski more than oncepropositioned Battenfield and even kissed heragainst her will, according to her deposition.

After the two had lunch together one day,Ostrowski said, "You know, I lust after you atnight, Battenfield testifies in her deposition.

Battenfield testifies that she was particularlyoffended that he used the word lust because "itwas my impression that he was implying that hethought about me while he masturbated."

About a week later, Ostrowski againpropositioned her, she charges. Ostrowskiallegedly said "something to the effect of 'willyou sleep with me' or `are you going to have asexual relationship with me," according toBattenfield.

Although Battenfield responded that she did notget involved with people with whom she worked, shetestifies that he kissed her and then left.

Battenfield describes the kiss as "veryoffensive and almost violent." Battenfieldtestifies that she tried to pull away, but thatthe encounter was over before she could doanything.

During a third incident about a week and a halflater, Ostrowski allegedly asked, "Have youdecided whether or not you are going to go to bedwith me?"

Battenfield says in her deposition that herresponse to Ostrowski was, "absolutely not. I wantto make it very clear that there is no questionabout it. I'm absolutely not going to sleep withyou; and if you continue to ask me this, I'm goingto report you."

Despite being rebuffed, Ostrowski kissed heragain, according to the deposition.

Although Battenfield did not report these threeinstances of alleged harassment at the time, afourth incident three years later prompted her totell Extension School officials what had happened.

`Get What I Wanted'

In a May 1991 meeting of Extension Schoolstaff, members were asked to evaluateBattenfield's job performance.

During this meeting, Ostrowski said: "When Ifirst started working here, I soon found out thatI couldn't get anything more than a yawn fromDelise; and then after a while, I figured out thatI could get what I wanted from Sarah," accordingto Battenfield's deposition.

Battenfield testifies that Ostrowski'sstatement "was directly referring to my havingrefused his sexual advances." She also calls thestatement retaliation for her decision to refusehis advances.

"The comment was between me and Don," she saysin the deposition. "I knew what he meant by thatcomment, and I knew why he was saying it."

"Sarah" is Sarah Gruppe, who Battenfield andher attorney believe was having an affair withOstrowski. Battenfield writes in an affidavitsubmitted for the case that Gruppe "told me shewas trying to decide whether to sleep with him."

In a phone interview last week, Gruppe deniedthat she had had a relationship with Ostrowski.

`Expeditiously and Thoroughly'?

Immediately after the May 14 meeting,Battenfield told Fernald what had happened, shesays in her deposition.

At that time Fernald said "I think Mike needsto hear this" and called in Dean Shinagel,according to Battenfield's deposition.

Battenfield testifies that she told Shinagelthe story, and the dean quickly said: "That'ssexual harassment."

Later in the conversation, "[Shinagel]indicated that he would take care of it, and Ithink he did. Oh, he told me that I should go homeand have a drink, and he didn't mean Cool-Aid orsomething like that," Battenfield testifies.

But no investigation followed.

Battenfield says she told John Adams, theExtension School ombudsperson charged withhandling personnel problems, about the allegedharassment, and he told her to put the complaintsin writing. She didn't, and "there," according toFernald's deposition, "the matter ended."

University officials say in court documentsthat they couldn't do an investigation without awritten complaint. But Harvard's policy on sexualharassment makes no such stipulation.

"Individuals who are affected by or aware ofsuspected cases of sexual harassment are urged tobring such situations to the University'sattention through the most comfortable of avariety of routes," the policy says. "They mayselect the informal process available within theirfaculties or departments.... Universityauthorities will explore the allegationsexpeditiously and thoroughly and will takeappropriate corrective action as necessary."

Battenfield alleges in her affidavit thatShinagel "did not want to be bothered with aninvestigation. In any event, he prevented one."

As evidence of such intent, she points to thefact that Shinagel received Fernald's may 1991memo and did not investigate.

"I am deeply distressed by all thesecircumstances," Fernald writes in that memo to thedean. "I expect you are too and hope you will makea careful inquiry."

Other Women?

Court documents indicate that Battenfieldbelieves Ostrowski sexually harassed at least twoother master's candidates who also happened to behis advisees.

Battenfield writes in her affidavit that one ofthe women told her that Ostrowski sexuallyharassed her.

"[The woman] informed me on the telephone thathe met with her in Washington, D.C., asked her outfor a meal (he claims the opposite), and after themeal, standing in the street, he abruptly grabbedand kissed or tried to kiss her, just as he kissedme without any warning, and that she vigorouslyfended him off," Battenfield writes.

The woman reported the incident to Harvard, butthere was no investigation, according toBattenfield.

In the court documents, Ostrowski denies havingsexually harassed the woman. He says the woman"looks older than her age" and implies that he didnot find her attractive.

Attempts to contact the woman last week wereunsuccessful.

Even before Battenfield complained to theExtension School administration, word ofOstrowski's alleged sexual harassment had leakedto school staffers. In an April 2,1991, letter toSchopf, the research coordinator, Ostrowski deniedany suggestion of harassment.

The letter suggests there were tensions betweenOstrowski and the school's administration. Hewrites: "Re: Whispering campaign involving chargesof harassment... here are the facts: I have neverharassed any student at any time not has anystudent ever accused me of harassment at anytime... These are charges made up by Dodge Fernaldand John Adams for their own purposes."

Ostrowski's letter does not specify what thosepurposes are. Fernald and Adams have refused tocomment.

Defamation?

Ostrowski was not the only person in the officewho didn't care for Delise Battenfield.

On April 26 of that same year, Schopf sent anine-page single-spaced letter to several membersof the office describing "Delise's generalincompetence, manipulativeness and dishonesty."

"For weeks Delise did nothing for us," Schopf'sletter says. "She didn't appear to be doing muchof anything else, either."

The letter savages Battenfield's ability as astudent and administrator, and calls her a liarand "an intellectually and professionally inferiorperson."

Schopf allegedly discussed these allegationswith various members of the office who did notreceive the letter.

In another memo circulated to several people inthe office, Schopf refers to a required proseminarfrom which she had excused Battenfield. Shewrites, "Dodge forced me to give Delise a waiverfor the proseminar."

But these memos, which appeared to come withoutwarning or explanation, do not square withSchopf's previous correspondence. In a 1990 memoto Fernald, Schopf writes that "in light of[Battenfield's] work over the last year I wouldmost certainly be willing to grant her theproseminar waiver."

In fact, Shinagel urged Battenfield to takeanother course instead of the proseminar,according to the court documents.

But after hearing Schopf's disparaging remarksabout Battenfield, Fernald based Schopf.

"I never imagined that anyone could feel quiteso resentful and not decide to speak contructivelyabout the problem at a much earlier date," Fernaldwrites in another internal memo.

Other members of the office, however, supportedSchopf. and Shinagel began the May 14 beganmeeting by soliciting comments about Battenfield'sperformance.

Shinagel also told Fernald that Battenfield hadpoor research skills compared to other master'scandidates and that Battenfield's performanceevaluation should be lowered in light of Schopf'sattack, according to court documents.

Battenfield Falls III

The criticism voiced at the May 14 meeting sodevastated Battenfield that, according touniversity Health services (UHS) records, shebegan suffering from severe stomach problems. Shesoon became too sick to work and May 20 turned outto be her last day on the job.

UHS's Stillman Infirmary admitted her on May21. She remained there for three days. Dr. WaseemaSheikh observed in a written summary ofBattenfield's stay that "she is under extremestress at work because of a very demandingsupervisor." And the doctor's handwritten notes,field May 29, show that Battenfield's conditionwas not temporary.

"Patient looks very anxious,' the notes say."She is still very upset with her dean at work andthe situations which have led to [high]stress andabdominal symptoms, etc."

The medical records appear to indicate that theMay 14 meeting either prompted Battenfield's illhealth or exacerbated some other medical problem.

"She has been under a lot of stress at work,particularly around the May 14 meeting at work,"says a report by Dr. Paul B. Lesser on June 18."About 5 days before the meeting, [symptomsbegan]."

Her symptoms subsided with treatment, but theyrecurred about a month later when the ExtensionSchool began to advertise her position, accordingto a July 10 report by Dr. Irving M. Allen of theUHS mental health services.

"She looked depleted, depressed, beaten down,"Allen writes. "She went into the office to find afew things and discovered that she had beencleaned out. there had been no warning. In apitiful phone call Monday, it sounded as thoughshe was utterly devastated. Her bowel is actingup..."

Battenfield collected disability benefits fromHarvard for her illness at the recommendation ofAllen, who wrote that her "conditions appeared tobe related to employment related problems."

Battenfield Replaced

Battenfield says in court documents that shedid not intend to give up her job when she becameill. She also says she was very upset when herposition was advertised. Battenfield waseventually replaced by Sarah Gruppe.

"Harvard gave my position away to Sarah Gruppewhile I was taking sick days," Battenfield says inher affidavit, "and there was no job to which Icould return."

Battenfield says Adams had promised that "myjob remained mine and I had no intention ofresigning."

But in her deposition, Battenfield appears tocontradict herself. She says in that testimonythat she told Shinagel, Fernald and personnelofficer teresa Gee, Shinagel that she had nonintention of returning her position.

Shinagel, in fact, phoned Battenfield toconvince her to stay on. "I told him that I didn'tsee how I could continue in that situation,"Battenfield says in the deposition.

But Adams told her that he did not consider herstatement a valid resignation, according to courtdocuments. Because of that, Battenfield explainsin her affidavit, her job should have remainedopen.

In addition, Battenfield says she would havereturned to work if the University had begun aninvestigation of the sexual harassment charge.

"Had Harvard investigated and taken appropriateremedial action, including keeping my job open,"Battenfield writes in the affidavit, "I would havestayed at my job."

The Lawsuit

Battenfield and her attorney, Peter W. Adler ofNatick, Mass., filed suit later in 1991. The suitaccuses Ostrowski of sexual harassment, assaultand battery; says Shinagel and Harvard had beennegligent in responding to her complaint; andcharges Schopf, Ostrowski and Shinagel withdefamation.

In response, University Attorney Allan A. RyanJr. field a motion for summary judgement in aneffort to get some of the counts dismissed.

Ryan's motion won a partial legal victory forHarvard. Judge Thayer Fremont-Smith ruled thatbattenfield could not recover damages for thealleged sexual harassment that occurred in1988--including Ostrowski's uninvitedkisses--because a suit must be field within sixmonths of the alleged incidents.

The jury may consider the incidents thatoccurred in 1988, but only as they relate toOstrowski's "yawn" comment at the 1991 meeting,the judge said.

Fremont-Smith also ruled that Harvard is liablefor its employees' failure to investigate, butthat Shinagel may not be individually heldresponsible for his actions. And he dismissed theclaims of defamation against Schopf, Ostrowski andShinagel on the grounds that the statements werematters of opinion.

A Great Writer

Members of the Harvard community who arefriends of either Battenfield or Ostrowski remainfiercely loyal. Many of Ostrowski's formerstudents say he is unusually caring and concernedfor his students.

And Lowell Professor of the Humanities,Emeritus William Alfred says he developed greatrespect for Battenfield after she took hisplaywriting class.

"She is one of the best writers of hergeneration," Alfred says. "She is one of thedeftest masters of characterization I have evercome across."

He calls allegations such as those made againsthis former student by Schopf "preposterous." AndAlfred adds that Battenfield is a "woman of honor"who "wouldn't bring charges unless she felt shehad to out of her sense of honor and duty to otherwomen."

But Alfred says he blames the difficultsituation, not Shinagel, for what happened."Shinagel is one of the best administrators atHarvard," he says.

But when there are charges as serious as sexualharassment, "executives in departments tend topretend to be shocked," Alfred says, "but then tryto wait until it blows over."Crimson File Photo

The University has fought this charge, using avariety of legal arguments and even Battenfield'smedical records from the University healthServices. and Harvard won a minor legal victorylast year when a Middle-sex County judge dismissedsome allegations in the civil suit.

Still, court documents in the case, which isscheduled to go to a trial in Middlesex CountyCourt on June 6, raise questions about how wellthe school responds to sexual harassmentcomplaints and treats employees and students.

For example, Fernald's memo charges that SueWeaver Schopf, coordinator of research advisorsfor the Extension School's master's program,verbally harassed Battenfield and broke promise ofconfidentiality to the student.

Neither the plaintiffs nor Extension Schoolofficials agreed to be interviewed for this story.Ostrowski and Shinagel did not return repeatedphone calls to their offices, and Shinagel wouldnot answer questions when reached at his residenceyesterday.

But depositions, affidavits, motions and, mostof all, internal Extension School memoranda painta stark--if incomplete--picture of the case.

One document that could become vital to thecase's outcome is another memo found in ExtensionSchool files. This letter, which was attached tothe Fernald memo, is not signed, but the documentwas sent to Shinagel and appears to have beenpenned by a school official.

"Is Delise aware that she has grounds to sueHarvard for megabucks?" it reads. "Not just anindividual for possible sexual harassment, but theUniversity (Extension School) for fostering aclimate of emotional harassment.

"I'd tell her to take a leave-of-absence,rather than leaving the Universityunconditionally; she needs some good advice (haveshe and her husband talked with a lawyer?), bothto preserve her rights and status as a Harvardemployee, as a Harvard degree-candidate, and,frankly, as a human being."

A Kiss?

In the fall of 1988, Ostrowski more than oncepropositioned Battenfield and even kissed heragainst her will, according to her deposition.

After the two had lunch together one day,Ostrowski said, "You know, I lust after you atnight, Battenfield testifies in her deposition.

Battenfield testifies that she was particularlyoffended that he used the word lust because "itwas my impression that he was implying that hethought about me while he masturbated."

About a week later, Ostrowski againpropositioned her, she charges. Ostrowskiallegedly said "something to the effect of 'willyou sleep with me' or `are you going to have asexual relationship with me," according toBattenfield.

Although Battenfield responded that she did notget involved with people with whom she worked, shetestifies that he kissed her and then left.

Battenfield describes the kiss as "veryoffensive and almost violent." Battenfieldtestifies that she tried to pull away, but thatthe encounter was over before she could doanything.

During a third incident about a week and a halflater, Ostrowski allegedly asked, "Have youdecided whether or not you are going to go to bedwith me?"

Battenfield says in her deposition that herresponse to Ostrowski was, "absolutely not. I wantto make it very clear that there is no questionabout it. I'm absolutely not going to sleep withyou; and if you continue to ask me this, I'm goingto report you."

Despite being rebuffed, Ostrowski kissed heragain, according to the deposition.

Although Battenfield did not report these threeinstances of alleged harassment at the time, afourth incident three years later prompted her totell Extension School officials what had happened.

`Get What I Wanted'

In a May 1991 meeting of Extension Schoolstaff, members were asked to evaluateBattenfield's job performance.

During this meeting, Ostrowski said: "When Ifirst started working here, I soon found out thatI couldn't get anything more than a yawn fromDelise; and then after a while, I figured out thatI could get what I wanted from Sarah," accordingto Battenfield's deposition.

Battenfield testifies that Ostrowski'sstatement "was directly referring to my havingrefused his sexual advances." She also calls thestatement retaliation for her decision to refusehis advances.

"The comment was between me and Don," she saysin the deposition. "I knew what he meant by thatcomment, and I knew why he was saying it."

"Sarah" is Sarah Gruppe, who Battenfield andher attorney believe was having an affair withOstrowski. Battenfield writes in an affidavitsubmitted for the case that Gruppe "told me shewas trying to decide whether to sleep with him."

In a phone interview last week, Gruppe deniedthat she had had a relationship with Ostrowski.

`Expeditiously and Thoroughly'?

Immediately after the May 14 meeting,Battenfield told Fernald what had happened, shesays in her deposition.

At that time Fernald said "I think Mike needsto hear this" and called in Dean Shinagel,according to Battenfield's deposition.

Battenfield testifies that she told Shinagelthe story, and the dean quickly said: "That'ssexual harassment."

Later in the conversation, "[Shinagel]indicated that he would take care of it, and Ithink he did. Oh, he told me that I should go homeand have a drink, and he didn't mean Cool-Aid orsomething like that," Battenfield testifies.

But no investigation followed.

Battenfield says she told John Adams, theExtension School ombudsperson charged withhandling personnel problems, about the allegedharassment, and he told her to put the complaintsin writing. She didn't, and "there," according toFernald's deposition, "the matter ended."

University officials say in court documentsthat they couldn't do an investigation without awritten complaint. But Harvard's policy on sexualharassment makes no such stipulation.

"Individuals who are affected by or aware ofsuspected cases of sexual harassment are urged tobring such situations to the University'sattention through the most comfortable of avariety of routes," the policy says. "They mayselect the informal process available within theirfaculties or departments.... Universityauthorities will explore the allegationsexpeditiously and thoroughly and will takeappropriate corrective action as necessary."

Battenfield alleges in her affidavit thatShinagel "did not want to be bothered with aninvestigation. In any event, he prevented one."

As evidence of such intent, she points to thefact that Shinagel received Fernald's may 1991memo and did not investigate.

"I am deeply distressed by all thesecircumstances," Fernald writes in that memo to thedean. "I expect you are too and hope you will makea careful inquiry."

Other Women?

Court documents indicate that Battenfieldbelieves Ostrowski sexually harassed at least twoother master's candidates who also happened to behis advisees.

Battenfield writes in her affidavit that one ofthe women told her that Ostrowski sexuallyharassed her.

"[The woman] informed me on the telephone thathe met with her in Washington, D.C., asked her outfor a meal (he claims the opposite), and after themeal, standing in the street, he abruptly grabbedand kissed or tried to kiss her, just as he kissedme without any warning, and that she vigorouslyfended him off," Battenfield writes.

The woman reported the incident to Harvard, butthere was no investigation, according toBattenfield.

In the court documents, Ostrowski denies havingsexually harassed the woman. He says the woman"looks older than her age" and implies that he didnot find her attractive.

Attempts to contact the woman last week wereunsuccessful.

Even before Battenfield complained to theExtension School administration, word ofOstrowski's alleged sexual harassment had leakedto school staffers. In an April 2,1991, letter toSchopf, the research coordinator, Ostrowski deniedany suggestion of harassment.

The letter suggests there were tensions betweenOstrowski and the school's administration. Hewrites: "Re: Whispering campaign involving chargesof harassment... here are the facts: I have neverharassed any student at any time not has anystudent ever accused me of harassment at anytime... These are charges made up by Dodge Fernaldand John Adams for their own purposes."

Ostrowski's letter does not specify what thosepurposes are. Fernald and Adams have refused tocomment.

Defamation?

Ostrowski was not the only person in the officewho didn't care for Delise Battenfield.

On April 26 of that same year, Schopf sent anine-page single-spaced letter to several membersof the office describing "Delise's generalincompetence, manipulativeness and dishonesty."

"For weeks Delise did nothing for us," Schopf'sletter says. "She didn't appear to be doing muchof anything else, either."

The letter savages Battenfield's ability as astudent and administrator, and calls her a liarand "an intellectually and professionally inferiorperson."

Schopf allegedly discussed these allegationswith various members of the office who did notreceive the letter.

In another memo circulated to several people inthe office, Schopf refers to a required proseminarfrom which she had excused Battenfield. Shewrites, "Dodge forced me to give Delise a waiverfor the proseminar."

But these memos, which appeared to come withoutwarning or explanation, do not square withSchopf's previous correspondence. In a 1990 memoto Fernald, Schopf writes that "in light of[Battenfield's] work over the last year I wouldmost certainly be willing to grant her theproseminar waiver."

In fact, Shinagel urged Battenfield to takeanother course instead of the proseminar,according to the court documents.

But after hearing Schopf's disparaging remarksabout Battenfield, Fernald based Schopf.

"I never imagined that anyone could feel quiteso resentful and not decide to speak contructivelyabout the problem at a much earlier date," Fernaldwrites in another internal memo.

Other members of the office, however, supportedSchopf. and Shinagel began the May 14 beganmeeting by soliciting comments about Battenfield'sperformance.

Shinagel also told Fernald that Battenfield hadpoor research skills compared to other master'scandidates and that Battenfield's performanceevaluation should be lowered in light of Schopf'sattack, according to court documents.

Battenfield Falls III

The criticism voiced at the May 14 meeting sodevastated Battenfield that, according touniversity Health services (UHS) records, shebegan suffering from severe stomach problems. Shesoon became too sick to work and May 20 turned outto be her last day on the job.

UHS's Stillman Infirmary admitted her on May21. She remained there for three days. Dr. WaseemaSheikh observed in a written summary ofBattenfield's stay that "she is under extremestress at work because of a very demandingsupervisor." And the doctor's handwritten notes,field May 29, show that Battenfield's conditionwas not temporary.

"Patient looks very anxious,' the notes say."She is still very upset with her dean at work andthe situations which have led to [high]stress andabdominal symptoms, etc."

The medical records appear to indicate that theMay 14 meeting either prompted Battenfield's illhealth or exacerbated some other medical problem.

"She has been under a lot of stress at work,particularly around the May 14 meeting at work,"says a report by Dr. Paul B. Lesser on June 18."About 5 days before the meeting, [symptomsbegan]."

Her symptoms subsided with treatment, but theyrecurred about a month later when the ExtensionSchool began to advertise her position, accordingto a July 10 report by Dr. Irving M. Allen of theUHS mental health services.

"She looked depleted, depressed, beaten down,"Allen writes. "She went into the office to find afew things and discovered that she had beencleaned out. there had been no warning. In apitiful phone call Monday, it sounded as thoughshe was utterly devastated. Her bowel is actingup..."

Battenfield collected disability benefits fromHarvard for her illness at the recommendation ofAllen, who wrote that her "conditions appeared tobe related to employment related problems."

Battenfield Replaced

Battenfield says in court documents that shedid not intend to give up her job when she becameill. She also says she was very upset when herposition was advertised. Battenfield waseventually replaced by Sarah Gruppe.

"Harvard gave my position away to Sarah Gruppewhile I was taking sick days," Battenfield says inher affidavit, "and there was no job to which Icould return."

Battenfield says Adams had promised that "myjob remained mine and I had no intention ofresigning."

But in her deposition, Battenfield appears tocontradict herself. She says in that testimonythat she told Shinagel, Fernald and personnelofficer teresa Gee, Shinagel that she had nonintention of returning her position.

Shinagel, in fact, phoned Battenfield toconvince her to stay on. "I told him that I didn'tsee how I could continue in that situation,"Battenfield says in the deposition.

But Adams told her that he did not consider herstatement a valid resignation, according to courtdocuments. Because of that, Battenfield explainsin her affidavit, her job should have remainedopen.

In addition, Battenfield says she would havereturned to work if the University had begun aninvestigation of the sexual harassment charge.

"Had Harvard investigated and taken appropriateremedial action, including keeping my job open,"Battenfield writes in the affidavit, "I would havestayed at my job."

The Lawsuit

Battenfield and her attorney, Peter W. Adler ofNatick, Mass., filed suit later in 1991. The suitaccuses Ostrowski of sexual harassment, assaultand battery; says Shinagel and Harvard had beennegligent in responding to her complaint; andcharges Schopf, Ostrowski and Shinagel withdefamation.

In response, University Attorney Allan A. RyanJr. field a motion for summary judgement in aneffort to get some of the counts dismissed.

Ryan's motion won a partial legal victory forHarvard. Judge Thayer Fremont-Smith ruled thatbattenfield could not recover damages for thealleged sexual harassment that occurred in1988--including Ostrowski's uninvitedkisses--because a suit must be field within sixmonths of the alleged incidents.

The jury may consider the incidents thatoccurred in 1988, but only as they relate toOstrowski's "yawn" comment at the 1991 meeting,the judge said.

Fremont-Smith also ruled that Harvard is liablefor its employees' failure to investigate, butthat Shinagel may not be individually heldresponsible for his actions. And he dismissed theclaims of defamation against Schopf, Ostrowski andShinagel on the grounds that the statements werematters of opinion.

A Great Writer

Members of the Harvard community who arefriends of either Battenfield or Ostrowski remainfiercely loyal. Many of Ostrowski's formerstudents say he is unusually caring and concernedfor his students.

And Lowell Professor of the Humanities,Emeritus William Alfred says he developed greatrespect for Battenfield after she took hisplaywriting class.

"She is one of the best writers of hergeneration," Alfred says. "She is one of thedeftest masters of characterization I have evercome across."

He calls allegations such as those made againsthis former student by Schopf "preposterous." AndAlfred adds that Battenfield is a "woman of honor"who "wouldn't bring charges unless she felt shehad to out of her sense of honor and duty to otherwomen."

But Alfred says he blames the difficultsituation, not Shinagel, for what happened."Shinagel is one of the best administrators atHarvard," he says.

But when there are charges as serious as sexualharassment, "executives in departments tend topretend to be shocked," Alfred says, "but then tryto wait until it blows over."Crimson File Photo