David Sanford

In a conversation with his colleague Andrew Macurdy, David Sanford defended a practical aid to jury deliberations: letting jurors take notes. Jurors, he said, “remember more when they hear and are active listeners by taking notes.” He recognized the risk that one person’s notes might carry too much weight, but preferred that risk to asking jurors to retain days of testimony entirely in memory.

The Ravina trial had required that kind of sustained attention. Across fifteen days in July 2018, a federal jury heard a dispute involving a junior professor’s research, complaints about a senior colleague, and communications sent to people who could influence her career. It first decided liability, then damages. Sanford tried the case with H. Vincent McKnight, Andrew Melzer, Melinda Koster and Amy Donehower; Alexandra Harwin and other lawyers and staff also contributed.

Ravina testified about the collaboration, the conduct she attributed to Bekaert, her complaints and the obstacles that followed. The successful retaliation claim concerned what happened after she complained: delays in completing scholarship and disparaging messages reaching the academic community in which her work and prospects were evaluated.

A Collaboration and Its Deadlines

Ravina joined Columbia Business School as a junior professor in 2008. Geert Bekaert was a senior tenured professor in her department. They began collaborating on a Financial Engines data set covering the savings behavior of millions of people. Ravina took the larger role in preparing the data and performing statistical analysis; Bekaert took the larger role in drafting their papers.

Ravina testified that unwanted personal conduct and pressure entered the relationship. Her complaint alleged sexual harassment, obstruction of research, hostile treatment and retaliation after she raised concerns with Columbia. The discrimination allegations and the later retaliation claim would require separate decisions from the jury.

For Sanford’s team, the retaliation proof had to connect Ravina’s complaints to subsequent conduct. Ravina described demands for unnecessary work, delayed drafts and repeated refusals to share computer code. Emails corroborated her account of refused schedules and withheld drafts. She testified that the stalling delayed a paper by six months as her tenure vote approached.

The jury also saw 26 emails from 2014 and 2016. Their recipients included influential professors and editors of leading journals. Some messages encouraged further circulation. Both Ravina and Bekaert confirmed the professional standing of people who received them, giving the jury a basis to assess their reach beyond a private disagreement.

Bekaert disputed that the research delays or communications were retaliatory. He offered explanations rooted in professional disagreements and described the emails as efforts to defend himself. Columbia offered academic and administrative reasons for its tenure and leave decisions, emphasized that Bekaert lacked supervisory authority, and denied retaliation by its own decisionmakers.

The jury therefore had to decide why the conduct occurred and whether it was reasonably likely to deter a complaint about discrimination. Ravina could establish retaliation for opposing conduct she reasonably believed discriminatory even if the jury did not find that the underlying conduct amounted to actionable discrimination.

Preparing the Questions for the Jury

Before trial, Bekaert and Columbia had filed separate motions for summary judgment. The court denied Bekaert’s motion in full and granted Columbia’s in part. Columbia obtained judgment on the federal quid pro quo theory and on claims accusing the university of direct discrimination. Other hostile-environment and discrimination theories could proceed through its handling of Bekaert’s alleged conduct.

The retaliation claims survived. Sanford’s team could present evidence that protected complaints preceded harm to Ravina’s research or reputation and ask the jury to infer retaliation despite the defendants’ explanations.

The court also ruled that Bekaert was not Ravina’s supervisor, eliminating theories that depended on that status. The City law, however, separately made an employer responsible for unlawful conduct by an employee or agent. That provision would supply the basis for Columbia’s liability at trial.

At the close of the defense case, Ravina withdrew her remaining federal claims against Columbia. The jury received five questions under the New York City Human Rights Law. Its answers would address the City law claims, without combining them with Title VII or Title IX.

The Third, Fourth and Fifth Answers

After about two days of deliberation, the jury answered the first question no: Bekaert had not been proved liable for discrimination against Ravina. The second question depended on a finding against him, so Columbia incurred no liability for that alleged discrimination.

The third answer was yes: Bekaert had retaliated. The fourth established Columbia’s responsibility for that retaliation under the employee-or-agent provision. The unlawful act was Bekaert’s; the statute attached responsibility to his employer. His lack of supervisory status did not defeat that basis for relief.

The fifth question concerned Columbia’s own conduct. The jury found that the university had not itself retaliated. Its answer left intact the liability arising from Bekaert’s acts. By deciding the questions separately, the jury could impose employer responsibility without finding direct misconduct by university decisionmakers.

Those findings established the basis for compensatory relief and for punitive damages against Bekaert. After the liability phase, Sanford spoke publicly about the damage to Ravina’s career. The next phase required evidence of the emotional and reputational injury caused by the conduct the jury had found retaliatory.

The Judgment Ravina Accepted

The damages jury awarded $750,000 in compensatory damages against Bekaert and Columbia and $500,000 in punitive damages against Bekaert alone. The initial judgment totaled $1.25 million.

On post-trial review, Bekaert challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting retaliation and punitive damages. Applying Rule 50 and viewing the record in Ravina’s favor, the court found that a reasonable jury had a sufficient basis for both findings. The liability allocation stood.

The amounts received separate scrutiny. The court reduced compensatory damages to $500,000 after comparing emotional-distress and reputational-harm cases and considering medical and professional evidence. It selected the largest amount it considered sustainable without a new damages trial.

Punitive damages were set at $250,000. The court considered repeated intentional retaliation, comparable awards, the compensatory amount and the City law’s civil-penalty benchmark. Ravina accepted both reductions on April 22, 2019: $500,000 in compensatory damages against Bekaert and Columbia, and $250,000 in punitive damages against Bekaert.

The court denied a permanent injunction. Ravina and Bekaert no longer worked together, years had passed since the communications, and the record showed no continuing course of retaliation. The damages also served compensatory and deterrent purposes.

The Protection for a Complaint

Later, separate cases continued to distinguish retaliation from the discrimination that prompted a complaint. In May 2026, the First Department’s decision in Quintanar recognized that rejecting sexual advances could constitute protected opposition under the City law. At the pleading stage, it applied the law’s broader retaliation standard and allowed allegations of agency to support attributing an individual’s retaliatory act to an employer. Direct employer misconduct remained a separate question.

In June 2026, the Second Department applied the City law in Griffith. Conduct that disadvantaged an employee could support a retaliation claim, but protected activity was still necessary. The court affirmed summary judgment because the employee’s complaint concerned office size rather than opposition to discrimination.

Learning and Building a Trial Practice

Sanford had taught for years before attending law school. After earning his law degree at Stanford, he clerked for Judge Gladys Kessler in the federal district court in Washington. He has credited her close editing with helping him make the transition from academic writing to legal writing. In discussing trial work with Macurdy, he emphasized the value of clerkships and the practical demands of presenting a case to jurors.

He now serves as Co-Founder, Chairman and Co-Chair of Executive Representation at Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight.

Carolin Guentert recalled a related conversation when she interviewed with Sanford in 2019. Her career had included corporate practice, a clerkship and teaching in a domestic-violence clinic. Sanford told her that differing professional backgrounds brought useful perspectives and that she could learn the details of Title VII. What mattered, in her account, was “tenaciousness and creativity” in representing clients whose civil rights were being challenged.