Former Guard Wins Legal Round

A former Harvard security guard who is charging the University with discrimination won the first round in his legal battle after a judge ruled three weeks ago not to grant a summary judgment to his case.

The plaintiff, Viatcheslav G. Abramian, 49, a former security guard, alleges he was fired two years ago in retaliation for complaints he field with colleagues about racial discrimination in the Harvard University Police Department's guard unit. Abramian, a Russian immigrant, is now homeless and lives in Jamaica Plain.

University Attorney Allan A. Ryan Jr. had previously moved that Abramian's case be decided by a summary judgment--in which a case can be dismissed early on if the judge feels there are not enough facts to prove wrongdoing.

The motion was presented to Superior Court Judge Maria I. Lopez at a hearing on March 17 at the Middlesex Country Courthouse.

Abramian's attorneys presented the judge with six violations allegedly committed by Harvard against their client: employment discrimination, violation of civil rights, defamation of character, invasion of privacy, interference with employment relations and retaliation.

Abramian was officially terminated from his job in 1993 for poor attendance, for being out of uniform and for assaulting another guard. He has consistently denied the charges, and alleges that he was targeted solely because of his ethnic background and because he had spoken out about discrimination in the unit in the past.

Abramian's lawyers said the University also invaded his privacy and defamed his character, because people associated with the University had publicized the police department's accusations against their client.

The judge threw out the civil rights, defamation and invasion of privacy charges in his ruling, but upheld the case and the other three charges.

Abramian's lawsuit is now in the courts and may be tried within the year, according to Thomas J. Doherty of Swomley and Doherty, the law firm representing Abramian.

Ryan could not be reached for comment yesterday. Doherty hailed the decisionas a victory, saying he did not feel that losingthe three charges was a problem for their case.

"It was part of our strategy," Doherty said."We feel like we have a slam-dunk case on theemployment discrimination, and we don't want to godown and lead the jury down a diversionary path."

He added that since employment discriminationis within the larger realm of civil rights, itwould not have made sense to try both charges.Abramian's attorneys did not "seriously" contestthe judge's decision to drop the charges, Dohertysaid.

Abramian's previous counsel, Waltham lawyerRichard H. Spicer, had filed the original sixcomplaints and set the court date. Swomley andDoherty took over representation in mid-February.

Doherty said that they are confident the jurywill decide in Abramian's favor when the trialcomes to court.

"When the jury hears about Mr. Abramian'sstory, and the kind of conduct he's been subjectedto by the [guard] supervisors at Harvard, they'lldo the right thing for Mr. Abramian," Dohertysaid.

Abramian was a guard for six years before hewas fired. Swomley and Doherty are representinghim pro bono.

The former guard could not be reached forcomment last night.

"They ruined the guy," Doherty said. "He had acondominium. He worked for Harvard for six years.There was this campaign against him, they calledhim a 'fucking Russian,' told people they weregoing to get this 'fucking Russian,' so he losthis job, lost his condominium."

A probe by University officials in 1993disputed the claims of Abramian and other securityguards who at the time maintained that some oftheir supervisors racially harassed them.

Those guards had also claimed that supervisorsretaliated against colleagues who complained, anaccusation which the probe also denied.

Since the probe, some security guards haveclaimed that have been targeted by superior forspeaking out against discrimination.

Former University security guard Pierre R. Vossfiled a complaint with the MassachusettsCommission Against Discrimination in 1993,alleging he was fired by the University for hispublic remarks about discrimination in the unit.His case was later dismissed.

In February, security guard Stephen G. McCombewas suspended for allegedly harassing a BlackGraduate School of Education student.

But McCombe claims his punishment was actuallyretaliation for having defended the securityguards complaining about racial discrimination,two years earlier. At that time, McCombe wasserving as a steward for the guards' union. Hiscomplaint against the University is still pending

"It was part of our strategy," Doherty said."We feel like we have a slam-dunk case on theemployment discrimination, and we don't want to godown and lead the jury down a diversionary path."

He added that since employment discriminationis within the larger realm of civil rights, itwould not have made sense to try both charges.Abramian's attorneys did not "seriously" contestthe judge's decision to drop the charges, Dohertysaid.

Abramian's previous counsel, Waltham lawyerRichard H. Spicer, had filed the original sixcomplaints and set the court date. Swomley andDoherty took over representation in mid-February.

Doherty said that they are confident the jurywill decide in Abramian's favor when the trialcomes to court.

"When the jury hears about Mr. Abramian'sstory, and the kind of conduct he's been subjectedto by the [guard] supervisors at Harvard, they'lldo the right thing for Mr. Abramian," Dohertysaid.

Abramian was a guard for six years before hewas fired. Swomley and Doherty are representinghim pro bono.

The former guard could not be reached forcomment last night.

"They ruined the guy," Doherty said. "He had acondominium. He worked for Harvard for six years.There was this campaign against him, they calledhim a 'fucking Russian,' told people they weregoing to get this 'fucking Russian,' so he losthis job, lost his condominium."

A probe by University officials in 1993disputed the claims of Abramian and other securityguards who at the time maintained that some oftheir supervisors racially harassed them.

Those guards had also claimed that supervisorsretaliated against colleagues who complained, anaccusation which the probe also denied.

Since the probe, some security guards haveclaimed that have been targeted by superior forspeaking out against discrimination.

Former University security guard Pierre R. Vossfiled a complaint with the MassachusettsCommission Against Discrimination in 1993,alleging he was fired by the University for hispublic remarks about discrimination in the unit.His case was later dismissed.

In February, security guard Stephen G. McCombewas suspended for allegedly harassing a BlackGraduate School of Education student.

But McCombe claims his punishment was actuallyretaliation for having defended the securityguards complaining about racial discrimination,two years earlier. At that time, McCombe wasserving as a steward for the guards' union. Hiscomplaint against the University is still pending