Campus Copy case not yet closed

Two years and two trials later, the case involving an allegedly racially motivated assault that occurred at Campus Copy Center is not quite over.

On April 2, 2001, Graduate School of Education student Gregory Seaton was overlooked for service at the Campus Copy Center, located at 3907 Walnut Street.

Ron Shapiro -- son of store owner Stan Shapiro -- assisted GSE professor Erling Boe first, despite the fact that Seaton was ahead of Boe in line, in what Seaton later alleged was a racially motivated incident. When Seaton protested, an assault ensued.

What unfolded following the incident was a series of statements and suits that ignited Penn's campus and a series of legal actions that, despite two court rulings, may not yet be concluded.

Most recently, on April 22, a civil court found four Campus Copy employees liable for negligence, assault and battery and false imprisonment in the 2001 incident, and awarded Seaton $350,000, more than $175,000 of which was in punitive damages.

This decision came despite a November 2001 federal court ruling that dismissed charges Seaton had filed against the University, Boe and four Campus Copy employees -- including allegations of assault, battery, civil rights violations and discrimination charges that were later added.

However, Law professor Kermit Roosevelt said that it is not unusual for federal and civil courts to have divergent verdicts.

"They're different burdens of proof," he said.

In a criminal court, the prosecution must prove that the defendant is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt," while "civil liability can be proved by a preponderance of evidence."

In other words, the prosecution only has to show that it is "more likely than not that the particular facts are true" in a civil case, whereas the requirements for a guilty verdict in a criminal case are more demanding.

Whether or not Campus Copy will be able to go through with its intent to appeal "depends on whether the court made reversible errors," Roosevelt said.

According to Stan Shapiro, the business "will be filing an appeal." However, he would not specify when that would occur.

"We did absolutely nothing wrong," he said. "We will be appealing the verdict."

While the legal process continues, controversy over the 2001 assault has subsided on campus.

But in the weeks following the incident, response from the University community was heated.

During the weekend following the incident, an e-mail written by Seaton describing the incident was circulated throughout campus listservs, and days of protests followed as many student groups lobbied the University to boycott Campus Copy for what they believed constituted unprofessional conduct. The Undergraduate Assembly also issued a statement condemning the business.

Members of student groups, Penn officials and Campus Copy employees then met to discuss the events, and Campus Copy agreed to sensitivity training and lessons in conflict resolution.

Additionally, as a result of the meeting, Campus Copy issued an apology for their "poor service" to Seaton in an April 17, 2001 statement.

Still, Seaton filed a lawsuit against Penn, Boe and four Campus Copy employees, including Ron Shapiro, on April 25, 2001. His decision to file a second civil lawsuit came after criminal charges were dismissed.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.