Court Returns Mixed Verdict in Guard's Suit

The state's highest court ruled last Friday on the appeal of a discrimination case against Harvard, saying the University illegally fired a former security guard but that a new trial is necessary because of an error in jury instruction.

Russian immigrant Viatcheslav "Steve" Abramian claims the University discriminated against him on the basis of national origin, firing him in 1993 in retaliation for complaints he made about anti-Russian slurs and other abuse from fellow guards.

While the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) affirmed the charge of retaliation, the rest of the civil suit must be retried because the judge gave incorrect instructions to the jury during the original trial.

"They said we were correct that the instructions to the jury on the discrimination count were erroneous," said Allan A. Ryan, Jr., the University attorney who worked on the case.

In the original trial, a jury awarded Abramian over $1.2 million in compensatory and punitive damages, agreeing that Harvard had discriminated against him and had fired him in retaliation for his complaints.

While punitive damages have to be decided again in court, Abramian will still receive compensatory damages awarded to him in the original trial, according to Abramian's attorney, John J. Barter.

Ryan would not comment on compensatory damages, saying discussions still have to occur "attorney to attorney" before any public statement on an award or settlement can be made.

In its appeal, Harvard argued that the judge had incorrectly instructed the jury to rule in Abramian's favor if they thought Harvard was not truthful in its reason for firing Abramian.

At the time, Harvard claimed Abramian was fired for starting a fight with another security guard and for filing a false report about the incident.

Harvard argued that a judgement on the reason for Abramian's firing did not automatically substantiate the charge of discrimination.

The SJC agreed that the jury instructions were incorrect, but still upheld the original retaliation ruling.

In the 8-page opinion written by Judge Francis X. Spina, the SJC gave detailed accounts of incidents in which Abramian was harassed by other guards, saying "Abramian was subjected to demeaning slurs about his national origin."

The opinion went on to say that "there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that the reason given by Harvard for terminating Abramian was not true" and that the original judge's charge on retaliation was "an accurate statement of the law."

Abramian's lawyer said that the court's statements support his client's claims of discrimination.

"I thought the Supreme Judicial Court understood the case very well," Barter said. "When they were describing the facts of the case, it was clear to me that the court found sufficient facts to support the claim of discrimination."

Barter also said the court's decision to have a new trial did not weaken Abramian's case.

"The problem they saw was with technical issues," he said. "The decision doesn't suggest that Harvard's behavior was appropriate. It merely says that, because of part of the language, it is necessary to have another trial."

Allan said he disagreed with the statement of facts in the SJC opinion.

"The SJC opinion does overstate the nature of the evidence," Ryan said.

But Barter said he believes the decision to uphold the retaliation claim shows that Abramian was right to speak out against the University.

"By affirming the retaliation claim, it vindicates Steve and says he was within his rights to let people, the student body and the community view the manner in which the guards treated him at the time."

A Long Battle

Abramian left Russia in 1981 to come to the United States, where he began working for a software company in Boston. In 1988, he started taking a mix of Harvard Extension School and Faculty of Arts and Sciences classes, working as a Harvard security guard to receive an employee tuition discount.

When Abramian was fired in 1993, he could no longer afford to keep taking classes, and could not get hired at another job because of the University's accusations against him.

He lost his car and condominium, and ended up staying at a Jamaica Plain homeless shelter for over six years.

After his jury trial in 1998, Abramian began working as a security guard at Northeastern University, where he continued his education. He received his master's degree in political science from Northeastern this spring.

He now has an apartment in Boston and is applying for acceptance to Ph.D. programs at several universities, although he has not been accepted to any yet.

Abramian was unavailable for comment, but his attorney says he looks forward to finishing the trial and continuing his education.

"He is pleased the court affirmed the retaliation claim," Barter said. "He is still working as a security guard while pursuing the education that he was trying to get before."

The case of Abramian vs. President and Fellows of Harvard College will most likely not go to a jury for retrial until the fall, according to attorneys on both sides.