University Dismisses Gay Einstein Student's Discrimination Claim
by Eitan Kastner
April 3, 2006
An openly gay student who was dismissed from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine (AECOM) is attempting to re-open a case in the New York Supreme Court, in which he accuses the medical school of sexual discrimination. Jeevan Padiyar claims that a memo written by a school administrator which he received in an anonymous e-mail used derogatory language with regard to Padiyar's sexual preference. AECOM claims that this potentially damaging e-mail is a forgery intended to re-introduce the case, which was thrown out once, in December of 2005.
Padiyar alleges on his website, Yeshivavictims.org, that AECOM faculty intentionally hampered his success after they learned of his sexual orientation.
In the New York Supreme Court case of Padiyar v. Yeshiva, Padiyar attempted to petition AECOM to reinstate him as a student - he claims he was suspended from his lab and was later dismissed from AECOM - and have all documentation of the suspension expunged from his record. In its defense, AECOM claimed that Padiyar was guilty of stealing lab equipment, misappropriating lab funds, and threatening a member of the housing staff.
According to the case file on Padiyar's website, the judge dismissed the case at the end of September after AECOM agreed to hold an internal hearing that would inquire into any university misconduct.
Following this hearing, the judge ruled in favor of AECOM on December 16, 2005. Padiyar's lawyer, Tom Shanahan, disputed AECOM's assertion of Padiyar's misconduct in an interview with The Commentator. "There is no merit to any of these issues that were raised. It was only after he [Padiyar] came out [as a homosexual] that they [AECOM] felt that he was a danger to the community." Despite this sentiment, the judge ruled in favor of AECOM.
On December 24, eight days after the Supreme Court's ruling, Padiyar claims that he received an e-mail from an anonymous sender that included a memo dated September 15, 2004, purportedly sent from AECOM Assistant Dean of Students James David to the recently deceased Dr. Marshall Horwitz, another AECOM faculty member. In the alleged memo, David instructs Horwitz to cease his support for what he calls "an openly gay student," explaining that "[o]ur donors cannot accept publicity from students of this 'type.'"
Padiyar and his legal team believe that this memo proves that AECOM is guilty of sexual discrimination.
Both camps tried to ascertain the authenticity of this memo, as it came to their attention via an anonymous source. Padiyar's website shows what it says is documentation from a forensic linguist proving the memo's authenticity. However, Daniel Riesel, a lawyer from Sive Paget & Reisel, that firm representing AECOM, said in an interview with The Commentator that "we have our own linguistic expert who says that there is no proof that the memo was written by David and that there is an indication that it was forged by Padiyar." Riesel also questioned the sensibility of writing the memo, asking, "Who in their right mind would write such a memo?"
Riesel then went on to describe how David's home and office hard drives were checked for the memo by forensic computer experts working for his firm. A search was also conducted in Horwitz's belongings, where the anonymous e-mail sender claimed to have found the memo, but it was not located their either.
Shanahan, Padiyar's lawyer, is not convinced of the impartiality of the inquiry into David's hard drive. He argued in the interview that allowing university lawyers to search their own clients is like "letting the fox guard the chicken coop. We are asking the court for a discovery to look at these hard drives. If we find this memo, we want Jeevan to be reinstated into the school."
As to the possibility that Padiyar forged the memo, a friend of Padiyar, Greg Durham, told The Commentator, "I don't think Keevan is personally capable of doing that. Of course Yeshiva is going to say it is a forgery." Durham continued, "His career in medicine and research means everything to him, he wouldn't do anything to endanger that."
Padiyar's case is not the first instance of purported sexual discrimination at AECOM. According to the American Civil Liberties Union publication, in 1998, two homosexual students successfully sued the school when it would not allow them to live together in subsidized housing. The school's policy at the time only permitted couples who are legally married to live together in subsidized housing. The Supreme Court of New York ruled that such a policy was illegal since it discriminated against homosexuals who can not be legally married in New York.
Jeevan Padiyar's website says he entered AECOM in 1999 and later joined the school's Sue Golding Graduate division with the hope of attaining an MD/PhD. In early 2003, according to the website, Padiyar was one of sixty students nationwide to receive the Howard Hughes Fellowship. Despite this, Padiyar received the grade of unsatisfactory for the fall 2003 semester in his lab. On his website, Padiyar insinuates that this was due to the fact that his sexual orientation was known to his professor.
Padiyar noted his frustration with regard to AECOM's treatment of him. "When I entered medical school I thought that I would be judged solely on my academic record and not on anything else. It appears that in Yeshiva that that is not the case."
Riesel, the Einstein attorney, sees a different reason for Padiyar's predicament, questioning Padiyar's academic performance. "He was like any other medical student. He did not distinguish himself from any of the other bright students there." Riesel went on, saying that "when Padiyar entered into the PhD program and he worked in a lab, he found to be difficult to work with by his lab monitor and was given two failing grades."
Georgia Pollak, executive director of University Communication, questioned Padiyar's motives and expressed confidence that Yeshiva would prevail legally. "It is an outright lie by a student who failed to meet certain expectations within Einstein Medical School and has tried to take advantage of his unfortunate situation," said Pollak. "I am confident that all matters will be resolved in our favor shortly."
(All rights belong to the Commentator)
No comments:
Post a Comment