Jillian L. Dinehart

A former student in the defendant’s Ph.D. program alleged quid pro quo sexual harassment and retaliation by a professor/advisor. The Sixth Circuit found that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the plaintiff was an employee, even though she was also a student. 

While at OSU, the plaintiff filled a graduate research associate position that covered her tuition and fees and offered a small monthly stipend. Professor Rizzoni, the director of the research program, also offered to supplement her stipend through his discretionary funds. The research assistant program classified the plaintiff as an employee. However, she also accepted a graduate fellowship that offered the same benefits and that classified her as a “student.” Despite the change in classification, nothing in her “job description” changed. 

During her three years at OSU, the plaintiff claimed Rizzoni used his power as her Ph.D. advisor, director of the research center, and his distinguished position in their professional field to coerce her to meet with him alone and subjected her to harassment. She described the constant threat that he could expel her from the program, rescind her pay, and ultimately cause her to lose her visa if she did not stay in his good graces. The plaintiff testified that after several years, Rizzoni grew so frustrated by her refusal to submit to his advances that he rushed her Ph.D. candidacy exam, manipulated the examination committee so that it failed her, and then denied her the customary opportunity to retake it. 

Rizzoni denied that he ever touched the plaintiff inappropriately and blames the breakdown of the relationship on her increasing refusal to meet with him, complete Ph.D.-level work and her poor academic performance. The plaintiff testified that she did not report any of the alleged numerous incidents because she “wanted to remain in the Ph.D. program, keep her visa, get her degree, and maintain a good relationship with Rizzoni given his prominence in the field.” The plaintiff did not report the harassment until after she failed her doctoral candidacy exam.

The Sixth Circuit, in finding that it was possible a jury could find that the plaintiff was an “employee,” considered Rizzoni’s ability to control the manner and means by which the plaintiff accomplished the work of her Ph.D. program. The court ignored how the parties characterized the relationship. Where the district court had organized the plaintiff’s tasks into academic and employment, the circuit court held that it was more appropriate to take a more holistic approach. 

In doing so, the circuit court considered that one of the primary purposes of the graduate program was to recruit skilled students, like the plaintiff, to work in the automotive engineering industry, through which the school reaped financial benefits. In contrast, OSU argued that the plaintiff’s compensation was not employment-related because no taxes were withheld. The circuit court reversed the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment and remanded the matter for additional consideration. 

---

 

_{Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}