U. says suit fails to identify wrongdoing

Jacobowitz claims he sufferedJacobowitz claims he sufferedfrom 'stress, fear, depression' While recent College graduate Eden Jacobowitz claims that the University violated its end of a mutual contract regarding campus policies and procedures in its handling of the 1993 "water buffalo" incident, the University has filed objections asserting otherwise. In its preliminary objections -- filed April 1 -- to Jacobowitz's lawsuit, the University argues that it followed its own policies and procedures and that it ultimately dropped charges against Jacobowitz without taking disciplinary action. The University asserts that Jacobowitz "fails to identify a single procedure provided for under applicable University rules that either was biased or that the University did not follow." In total, Jacobowitz has brought seven counts against the University, including gross negligence, breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy and defamation. In its objections, the University also states that under Pennsylvania law, a plaintiff cannot recover money for negligence without proving a "causal connection between physical harm to the plaintiff and the alleged economic losses suffered." The University further claims that Jacobowitz's suit fails to show breach of contract, because the events of the incident did not specifically cause him "bodily injury." But Jacobowitz said he was, in fact, subjected to "stress, fear, depression, alienation from the Penn community and a respiratory infection which persisted for more than six months." The University also objected to Jacobowitz's claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, saying that "Jacobowitz's allegation does not even approach the legal standard in Pennsylvania for 'extreme and outrageous' conduct. Pennsylvania law does not permit a claim for emotional distress based upon the loss of money." Objections to Jacobowitz's claim of invasion of privacy and false light arise from the University's assertion that Jacobowitz failed to identify any false statements made by the University. With regard to Jacobowitz's final complaint that the University defamed him, the University explains that under Pennsylvania law, a plaintiff may not recover punitive damages in a defamation action "unless he alleges that the defendant acted with 'actual malice,' and with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth." The objections claim the University had no malicious intentions whatsoever during the incident. Jacobowitz and his attorney are currently in a process of discovery, during which they are requesting documents and evidence from the University. According to Penn's Associate General Counsel Frank Roth, it is unlikely that a trial would commence before the summer if the suit is not dropped or if there is no settlement between Jacobowitz and the University. Five black members of the Delta Sigma Theta sorority charged Jacobowitz with racial harassment after he shouted, "Shut up, you water buffalo" out his High Rise East to DST sisters on January 13, 1993. The University was first served a writ of summons from Jacobowitz and his former attorney, George Schoerner, on June 21, 1994. A writ of summons is the document that begins a lawsuit, although it does not yet contain factual obligations, according to Roth. The complete complaint, which contains specific allegations against the University, was filed February 13 by Jacobowitz and his current attorney, Edward Rubenstone. Jacobowitz is seeking a sum in excess of $50,000 for physical, emotional and academic damages he claims he suffered during the incident and resulting judicial proceedings. He asserts that his "water buffalo" statement "does not qualify as racial harassment under the terms of the 1992-93 policy." The disciplinary proceedings against Jacobowitz were dropped in May 1993 before the hearing was over. But he said he feels he was not given the chance to vindicate himself of any wrongdoing or to prove himself innocent of the racial harassment charges.