In case you couldn't read the above post near the beginning because the type was HUGE, someone wrote:- Diddler Dubinsky, accused of sexual assault;
- Ken Grant, heavy honcho school official, doesn't want the school to be held liable, friend of Diddler and Diddler's wife;
- Judy Fortier, Hyde staff and sycophant, friend of Claire and Ken Grant, friend of Diddler and Diddler's wife, husband also used to work at Hyde but allegedly left "because of a pronounced proclivity to ogle undergrads;"
- unidentified male Hyde staff #1, Hyde apologist whether he wants to be or not;
- unidentified male Hyde staff #2, Hyde apologist whether he wants to be or not;
- perhaps others.
- victim, underage, family is far away and has not been informed.
Ummm... something seems a bit OFF about this picture. Two things rear up in my mind, other than the incredibly disparate blocks of personnel (just squint your eyes and look at that screen).[/i]
And, in case you couldn't read what Ursus wrote on another thread regarding Larry Dubinsky, former dean of students and his alleged sexual misconduct, (Hyde settled and paid the Hiler family) and "star" of Hiler v Hyde, here are the links to the summary: https://ia800202.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.ctd.18684/gov.uscourts.ctd.18684.docket.html and https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/1e0g0oy6/connecticut-district-court/hiler-v-hyde-school/ and here is what Ursus transcribed from photos of the case into text: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
XXXX XXXX VS. HYDE SCHOOL AT WOODSTOCK
CIVIL ACTION NO.
MARCH 5, 2002
COMPLAINT
1. This is an action by a female student against a private school which, upon information and belief, is the recipient of federal funds, for tolerating and encouraging a pattern of sexual misconduct directed against her and other female students by a male faulty member, over a long period of time.
2. Jurisdiction of this court is invoked under the provisions of Sections 1331, 1343(3) and 1367(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code and this court's supplementary and diversity jurisdiction over the plaintiff's causes of action under state law.
3. The plaintiff is an adult female citizen of the State of XXXXX. She was born on XXX and at all times mentioned herein was an out-of-state student at the defendant's school in Woodstock, Connecticut.
4. The defendant is a private school located in Woodstock, Connecticut. Upon information and belief, the defendant receives federal financial assistance for the operation of its educational and related programs.
5. The amount at issue in this case is greater than seventy-five thousand dollars, exclusive of interest and costs.
6. In 2001, and for several years prior thereto, the defendant employed at its school in Woodstock an adult male teacher by the name of Larry Dubinsky. At all times mentioned herein, said Dubinsky was acting as the agent, servant, and employee of the defendant, within the scope of his employment and agency, and for the defendant's financial benefit.
7. For several years prior to and including the events described hereinafter, the defendant, through its administrators and officials, had actual knowledge that Dubinsky was subjecting the female students at Hyde School to sexual harassment which included inappropriate touching, staring, and comments. Despite such actual knowledge, the defendant retained Dubinsky on its faculty and permitted him to continue to have daily, direct and unsupervised contact with the adolescent female students at the school, including the plaintiff.
8. During the second week of July, 2001, at the school, Dubinsky initiated a "role-playing" incident with the plaintiff in the course of which he insisted upon having full body contact with the plaintiff, repeatedly and over her objection, while making lewd and inappropriate comments to her which included the phrase "fucking pussy".
9. On August 1, 2001, while instructing a dance routine in which the plaintiff was involved, Dubinsky required the plaintiff to be his partner and to dance with him. He required her to bend down in front of him, then lifted her, raised her blouse, felt around her body for her hips and placed his hands on her hips. When the plaintiff objected and moved away from him, he attempted to coerce her into continuing.
10. When the plaintiff complained to the defendants administrators about the aforesaid misconduct, she was summoned to a meeting at which she was required to meet with Dubinsky and was criticized by administrators for not wanting to look at Dubinsky during the meeting. The following day, she was summoned to yet another meeting with administrators, which the administrators concealed from her parents. When school officials were informed in September of 2001 that the plaintiff was suffering from recurring nightmares regarding Dubinsky, a faculty member falsely accused the plaintiff of flirting with another male teacher. Her mother's pleas to the defendant's highest administrators that Dubinsky be kept away from the plaintiff and not allowed on school grounds were rejected. In February of 2002, the plaintiff was required to serve as a waitress at a party given by the defendant's headmaster at which other under-age students were required to serve alcoholic beverages. Dubinsky was an invited guest at that party.
11. In the manner described above, the defendant has, on the basis of the plaintiff's sex, excluded her from participation in, denied her the benefits of, and/or subjected her to discrimination under an education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance in violation of Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, Sections 1681 - 1688 of Title 20 of the United States Code.
12. In the manner described above, the defendant through its aforesaid agent subjected the plaintiff to assault and battery on each of the two separate occasions described above, in violation of Connecticut state law.
13. The conduct of the defendant and its agent described above was extreme and outrageous and was carried out with the knowledge that it probably would cause the plaintiff to suffer emotional distress.
14. In the manner described above, the defendant further acted in negligent disregard of the probability that its conduct would cause the plaintiff, like any person of ordinary sensibilities similarly situated, to suffer emotional distress so severe that physical illness could result.
15. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the defendant described above, the plaintiff has suffered severe emotional distress.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff claims judgment against the defendant for compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and costs.
CLAIM FOR JURY TRIAL
The plaintiff claims trial by jury.
THE PLAINTIFF
BY:______________
JOHN R. WILLIAMS
Federal Bar No. ct00215
Williams and Pattis, LLC
51 Elm Street
New Haven, CT 06510
TELEPHONE: 203.562.9931
FAX: 203.776.9494
E-MAIL:
[email protected]Her Attorney
