Former Journal Editor Sues Harvard, Citing Discrimination

Charging that Harvard fired her because of her mental disability, a former journal editor is suing the University for discrimination, in a trial that opened in Middlesex County Superior Court last week.

Claire S. Kelleher, the former editor of The Review of Economics and Statistics, a publication of Harvard's Economics Department, is contesting her termination in August 1996 after 20 years at the position.

Kelleher, who was diagnosed with clinical depression after the death of her parents, claims the University's refusal to accommodate her disability was discriminatory. A second claim alleges that her termination was a retaliation for filing complaints both within the University and with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD).

"We deny discrimination and deny any liability," said University Attorney Allan A. Ryan Jr., who is defending the University in conjunction with Boston's Bingham Dana law firm.

Kelleher is suing the University based on the Massachusetts anti-discrimination statute that requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to qualified handicapped persons. The law recognizes mental, as well as physical impairments, to be handicapping conditions.

Kelleher's suit claims actual damages of over $650,000 from Harvard plus unspecified damages for emotional distress and punitive damages.

Opening arguments in the case started Nov. 8, and lawyers expect arguments to continue into next week and possibly the week after Thanksgiving.

Kelleher began working for Harvard in 1976, performing her duties from an office in her home.

During the peak of her bout with depression in 1993, Kelleher admits she fell behind on her work. However, she claims in her trial brief that after drug therapy she started to catch up to the backlog and her work was again on time by the beginning of 1995.

In the trial brief, Kelleher claims that Director of Administration for the Department of Economics Laura A. Ervin, one of her supervisors, demanded in March 1996 that Kelleher start working on campus.

Kelleher, who claims her mental condition required her to work at home, alleges that her supervisor's action was discriminatory. She complained to Harvard's Office of the General Counsel and filed a complaint with MCAD after allegedly receiving no response from the University.

In documents submitted to the court, Kelleher titles the period after filing this claim as "the retaliation." Kelleher was informed of the elimination of her job on Aug. 30, 1996 and editing of the journal was turned over to MIT Press.

Kelleher claims she was fired in retribution for her discrimination complaint, but Harvard's attorney disputes the plaintiff's characterization of the case.

"We disagree with a great many of the facts," Ryan said. "The decision to eliminate her job was not influenced in any way but the merits of the working situation."

Recent decisions by the United States Supreme Court may prove relevant to the case. Several rulings made at the end of the court's last term are widely seen as limiting the effect of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act.

While Supreme Court decisions are not binding on the similar Massachusetts statute, Ryan said that state courts often look towards federal court decisions as important precedents.

In this case, however, Ryan said University is defending itself on the basis of specific circumstances and is not making any broad arguments about discrimination against clinical depression as a protected disability.

"We are not making generalizations about depression," Ryan said. "We are focusing on the plaintiff as [the case] regards her."

Ryan refused, however, to discuss the specifics of the University's legal defense strategy in the midst of the trial.

Thomas K. Christo, Kelleher's lawyer, was also unwilling to comment yesterday.

Kelleher's original suit included charges against Ervin and James H. Stock, Larsen Professor of Political Economy in the Kennedy School of Government. These defendants were voluntarily dropped when the case was brought to trial.