Jury rules UCLA handled harassment case properly
By Carolyn McGough
Feb. 25, 2007 9:49 p.m.
In response to a lawsuit accusing UCLA of improperly responding to an alleged case of sexual harassment, a Los Angeles jury ruled 10-2 in favor of the university, saying its actions investigating the accusations made by a former psychiatric resident had been appropriate.
Dr. David Martorano filed the lawsuit, asserting that after he ended an affair with his female supervisor, Dr. Heather Krell, rumors circulated that resulted in the university taking away the position of chief resident of the psychiatry department, a job that had been promised to him.
Martorano also said Krell damaged his reputation by accusing him of making up their affair.
Krell filed a countersuit, alleging invasion of privacy and slander, and maintained that she and Martorano never had sex.
In an internal investigation into the incident, UCLA determined there was no sexual harassment.
Martorano was not given the position of chief resident because “regardless of whether or not Martorano and Krell had sex, even the perception that people are getting chief residencies because they are sleeping together is not acceptable,” said Alan Zuckerman, a University of California attorney who represented UCLA.
Jurors reached their decision Thursday, concluding that UCLA properly responded to allegations.
“UCLA immediately investigated the case. UCLA has officials trained and looking into these (harassment) situations, and when the allegation was reported to the university it immediately began investigating and interviewed all parties involved,” said UCLA spokeswoman Carol Stogsdill.
UCLA officials said in a statement they were pleased with the decision.
“UCLA is pleased that jurors in the Martorano v. UCLA-Krell case have found the university’s actions in responding to accusations of sexual harassment to be swift, thorough, appropriate and lawful,” the statement read.
Both Martorano and Krell said they were pleased with the outcome of the case, though neither was awarded any money.
Jurors said they believed Krell and Martorano had an affair that violated UCLA’s policies, but Krell lied about it, juror Ruven Domenech said.
But the affair and Krell’s lies did not constitute sexual harassment, he added.
Martorano said he believes jurors vindicated his claim that he had not lied about his affair with Krell, said his lawyer Steven Pingel.
Krell also said her countersuit was aimed at protecting her reputation, and she believes filing the suit was more important than actually proving she and Martorano did not have sex.
Her suit was for $1, and was filed to prove her point that she and Martorano did not have sexual relations.
“The defamation suit that everyone is speaking of was on principle. Proving the negative (that Martorano and I never had sex) was part of my suit. I’m glad I’m vindicated after all this,” Krell said.
UCLA officials said they regret the case was brought to court at all.
“It is unfortunate that we had to go to a courtroom in order to defend our actions against baseless accusations,” the university’s statement read. “We want to emphasize that no evidence submitted during the trial supported the accusation that UCLA acted irresponsibly.”
With reports from Bruin wire services.
