Rudenstine Named In Lawsuit by Guard

In an unusual legal move, a former Harvard security guard has named President Neil L. Rudenstine as a defendant in the guard's lawsuit against the University.

In his suit, Viatcheslav Abramian, a Russian citizen, charges that Harvard officials, including Police Chief Paul E. Johnson and Manager of Operations for Security Robert J. Dowling, discriminated against him on the basis of his national origin.

The naming of Rudenstine as a defendant appears to increase the stakes in what might ordinarily be a minor job discrimination complaint. Abramian's attorney, Richard H. Spicer, would not comment on the case this week, but the suit indicates that Rudenstine is named under the legal doctrine of respondeat superior.

In other words, Abramian charges that Rudenstine is responsible for the actions of Johnson, Dowling and other employees in the University.

But University Attorney Allan A. Ryan Jr. called the naming of Rudenstine as a defendant "basically unnecessary."

Ryan also said Harvard would generally oppose any effort to put the president on the stand if he was not directly involved with the decision to fire an individual. He would not say whether that general principle would apply to this specific case, which will likely not go to trial for another two years.

"Our position [in general] is that if the president doesn't know anything aboutthe facts of the case, then the presidentshouldn't testify," Ryan said.

Abramian was fired in January after analtercation with fellow security guard TimothyCarlow, who is also among those named in the suit.

Abramian withdrew a complaint he filed with theMassachusetts Commission Against Discrimination topursue his lawsuit, filed in Middlesex CountySuperior Court earlier this month.

The naming of Rudenstine seems somewhatunusual. A review of the civil cases filed againstHarvard in Middlesex County over the past twoyears shows only one other case when a Harvardpresident was listed as a co-defendant.

The decision to name Rudenstine may have beenprompted, in part, by the president's publiccomments on the security guard unit.

A year ago this month, after eight former andcurrent employees of the security unit cameforward to allege they were harassed on the joband discriminated against by their superiors,Rudenstine ordered an investigation of the guards'charges.

The result of the investigation, published inJuly by Vice President and General CounselMargaret H. Marshall, denied the employees'charges, and blamed problems in the unit on anactive steward in the security guard union, thestudent press and poor management.

But after the report's release, Rudenstinerefused to answer the most basic questions aboutthe document. In an interview in August,Rudenstine skirted two direct questions asking ifhe agreed with the conclusions of the report

Abramian was fired in January after analtercation with fellow security guard TimothyCarlow, who is also among those named in the suit.

Abramian withdrew a complaint he filed with theMassachusetts Commission Against Discrimination topursue his lawsuit, filed in Middlesex CountySuperior Court earlier this month.

The naming of Rudenstine seems somewhatunusual. A review of the civil cases filed againstHarvard in Middlesex County over the past twoyears shows only one other case when a Harvardpresident was listed as a co-defendant.

The decision to name Rudenstine may have beenprompted, in part, by the president's publiccomments on the security guard unit.

A year ago this month, after eight former andcurrent employees of the security unit cameforward to allege they were harassed on the joband discriminated against by their superiors,Rudenstine ordered an investigation of the guards'charges.

The result of the investigation, published inJuly by Vice President and General CounselMargaret H. Marshall, denied the employees'charges, and blamed problems in the unit on anactive steward in the security guard union, thestudent press and poor management.

But after the report's release, Rudenstinerefused to answer the most basic questions aboutthe document. In an interview in August,Rudenstine skirted two direct questions asking ifhe agreed with the conclusions of the report