Jury rules against U. in suit

A decision was reached Friday afternoon in the case of Tai Van Le, the former Chemistry Department employee who claimed he was the victim of discrimination in 1997 because of his national origin. The jury found that the University had not discriminated against Le, but had retaliated against him for the complaints he made. In 1997, Le, who is of Vietnamese origin, was put on probation and then fired. Le was awarded $25,000 in back pay and $10,000 in punitive damages. "I was disappointed that they did not order more back pay and punitive damages, but I was satisfied that they did believe Mr. Le had been retaliated against," said Le's attorney, Robert O'Brien. "No one should have had to go through what this man went through." O'Brien added that he was told by jury members after the trial that the fact that Le had not found another job made the jury reluctant to give more money. University officials said they were satisfied with the ruling. "The jury agreed with Penn that there was no discrimination," University spokeswoman Phyllis Holtzman said. "They found for the plaintiff on the retaliation charges and awarded him an extremely modest amount of $35,000." Deputy general counsel Wendy White agreed. "The total amount that was awarded to Mr. Le was less than had been offered by the University as a severance package in 1999," White said. Nonetheless, Penn may challenge part of the finding by filing a motion to strike the punitive damages award. O'Brien, however, said the punitive damages were of "great significance." The jury was "trying to send a message to the University. to not have another Tai Van Le," O'Brien said. "That when they have another case of national origin discrimination they should take it more seriously and take steps to remedy it." "The University should be humbled by the jury verdict and accept it for what it is, a loud and clear message," he added. "When a university can't accept the decision of a jury it speaks volumes about the arrogance of the decision makers." Le's lawsuit alleged that during the summer and fall of 1997, some of his coworkers made "disparaging, demeaning comment's concerning [his] nationality" and that he was put on probation and then fired because he complained about the remarks.