Penn will battle two lawsuits

The University will head to court within the next week for two lawsuits, facing charges of causing personal injury in one and discriminating against an employee in another. Jury members will be selected in the cases of Amy Meehan and Tai Van Lee today and Monday, respectively. Meehan, a former student in the Graduate School of Fine Arts, is alleging that Penn is responsible for injuries she received while using University welding equipment. Le, a former University employee, is claiming that he faced discrimination because of his national origin while working in the Chemistry Department. The University denies the allegations in both cases. Meehan's attorney said that Penn did not provide safety equipment for Meehan, thus causing her injuries. Meehan received second- and third-degree burns on the left side of her body, as well as other injuries, when her clothes ignited while using oxy-acetylene torches and other welding equipment. "I think the evidence shows a total lack of safety equipment at the University of Pennsylvania to protect students who are welding," Meehan's attorney Keith Erbstein said. "Primarily we are talking about protective clothing." Additionally, Meehan's suit alleges that Penn knew of other incidents where students' clothes were set afire and had refused requests by University employees and instructors for safety clothing and equipment. University officials said that Penn was not responsible for the injuries. "We regret the injuries that Amy Meehan suffered as a result of this incident, however we are denying responsibilities for these injuries," University spokeswoman Phyllis Holtzman said. The trial will begin Monday in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. Neither Meehan nor Fine Arts Dean Gary Hack could be reached for comment. Le's lawsuit alleges that during the summer and fall of 1997, some of his coworkers made "disparaging, demeaning comments concerning [Le's] nationality." "When he complained [of what] he thought was occurring in the Chemistry Department there were reprisals visited on him, including his being put on probation and then discharged," Le's attorney Robert O'Brien said. The University is disputing Le's discrimination claim. "We deny that we discriminated against Tai Van Le and will defend vigorously against these charges," Holtzman said. "His employment was terminated for legitimate employment-related reasons. O'Brien disagreed, however. He said that Le, a Vietnamese electrical engineer who had worked in the Chemistry Department for 11 years prior to 1997, had received excellent recommendations from his superiors until he complained about anti-Asian discrimination. "They claim that he did not successfully complete probation and did not perform his job competently... which is very interesting after 11 years of doing it competently," O'Brien said. Later he added, "He was stressed at work and took family medical leave in October/November of 1998... He came back in mid-December 1998. His first day back after being away for two months, he was placed on probation for 30 days." The suit then alleges that Le was given a series of technical tasks to complete over the 30 days that University officials knew could not be accomplished. "It was a facade, it was a farce, they were going through the motions," O'Brien said. "They knew he would not be able to do it." Officials in the Chemistry Department declined to comment and Le could not be reached.