[ad_1]
Theodore Piepenbrock, 57, was seeking £2.1million in compensation but the tribunal judgment dismissed his claims of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and victimisation. Dr Piepenbrock was accused of giving a junior colleague “excessive compliments” including that she had a “beautiful body”. The academic, who previously taught at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), denied the allegations.
The LSE investigated the claims and Dr Piepenbrock was cleared of any wrongdoing.
The tribunal heard Dr Piepenbrock started working at the university in September 2011 and employed a female graduate teaching assistant in September 2012.
He claims he was staying with the teaching assistant at a hotel in Boston during a work trip in November 2012 when she answered her door wearing only a jumper with either her genitals or underwear exposed.
In a witness statement, Dr Piepenbrock said he is “somehow found to be attractive to women of a specific type (ie autistic)” which “manifested itself” when he was “stalked and sexually harassed” by her.
He also claimed she would wear “mini skirts” to work and flash her underwear at him when she bent onto the floor to plug in a power cord for her laptop.
The teaching assistant made a formal complaint against Dr Piepenbrock after returning to London, which was investigated by an LSE anti-harassment panel.
Dr Piepenbrock was signed off sick from work in December 2012 and his position was not renewed, the tribunal heard.
He was told the claims were “not proven” and he would not be facing any disciplinary proceedings in July 2013 – nearly nine months after the allegations were first made.
Dr Piepenbrock, who has Asperger syndrome, says the LSE’s handling of the claim caused him to suffer depression, anxiety and an ‘autistic meltdown’.
But in a written judgment, the employment tribunal said he was not a “reliable or credible witness”.
The judgement said he had demonstrated “behaviour which is manipulative and dishonest”.
It read: “We have not found the claimant to be a reliable or credible witness.
“We have concluded the claimant has demonstrated behaviour which is manipulative and dishonest.
“His approach to individuals who he believes have wronged him is frequently malicious and actively destructive.”
[ad_2]
Source link
