Call Today: (860) 246-2700

Contact Connecticut Crime Victim Lawyer

Tim O'Keefe at (860) 246-2700

Connecticut Crime Victim Lawyer Tim O’Keefe

Welcome to the website of Connecticut Crime Victim Lawyer Tim O’Keefe, an established Connecticut trial lawyer who is dedicated to representing crime victims in claims for financial compensation for their harms and losses.  If you are interested in pursuing a potential claim, please contact us for a Free Consultation.

Arrest Warrant Details Miss Porter’s Sexual Assault Case

HARTFORD —

The warrant for the arrest of a former Miss Porter’s School physics teacher and coach outlines allegations of repeated sexual liaisons between the teacher and a student who has since graduated.

But police continue to investigate the case, and say more charges are possible. Farmington police Det. Susan DiVenere interviewed six current and former Miss Porter’s students about inappropriate conduct they claim they experienced with Joseph Rajkumar, 42, who was charged last month with two counts of second-degree sexual assault and one count of fourth-degree sexual assault.

Rajkumar posted $500,000 bail. He appeared briefly at Superior Court in Hartford on Tuesday.

Rajkumar worked at Miss Porter’s from August 2009 until March 4. Farmington police opened their investigation March 6, after a Miss Porter’s guidance counselor notified the state Department of Children and Families of sexually inappropriate conversations between Rajkumar and five students, police said. The guidance counselor learned of the messages and immediately contacted DCF, police said.

Farmington police praised Miss Porter’s for its quick reporting of the suspicious conduct, its cooperation with the police investigation and its focus on getting students any counseling or other help they need.

The school has a zero tolerance policy and fired Rajkumar as soon as staff learned of the messages, Farmington police Chief Paul Melanson said. The school then immediately contacted DCF, as required by law.

The student Rajkumar is accused of sexually assaulting is now in college and disclosed the alleged contact with Rajkumar to her boyfriend. The boyfriend contacted local police, who interviewed the young woman and contacted Farmington police on March 20.

The student told police her relationship with Rajkumar began when she was 15 and consisted of what police described as inappropriate attention. It became sexual when she was 17, according to the warrant.

Although the age of consent in Connecticut is 16, state law makes it illegal for a school employee to engage in sexual conduct with a student.

The woman told police she would talk to Rajkumar about stress during school, especially when big tests were coming up. “He would give her a hug and ‘pull me in really close, feeling me a little,’” according to the warrant. “She explained that he would rub his hand up and down her back.”

The girl acknowledged that she thought Rajkumar’s attention was “exciting” and that “she went along with it.” In the meantime, Rajkumar urged her to create a fictitious email account. During the summer, the student told police, she and Rajkumar exchanged sexual videos.

Eventually, they began having sexual contact that progressed from “making out” to groping to sexual intercourse, the warrant says. They had intercourse in the back closet of Rajkumar’s classroom in the Olin building at Miss Porter’s, the student told police.

After the woman graduated, she did not hear from Rajkumar and was confused about their relationship, the warrant says. She said she was afraid to report what happened out of fear Miss Porter’s would take away her diploma, which would cause her to have to leave college.

On March 7, according to the warrant, Rajkumar went to the Farmington Police Department to talk with DiVenere about the investigation. He admitted that he communicated with current students through a Gmail account with the fake name Terry Olson, and described the emails as “not appropriate,” the warrant says.

DiVenere found emails between Rajkumar and the student that were sexual in nature, although Rajkumar claimed all such emails were after she graduated and was in college, the warrant says. When DiVenere noted that the dates on the emails did not back up that claim, he began to cry and repeatedly apologized, the warrant says.

On March 21, Rajkumar voluntarily went to the police station to talk to DiVenere again about the case, and acknowledged a sexual relationship with the student during her senior year, but then left the police station because he said he wanted to confess to his wife before saying more, the warrant says.

He returned a short time later and provided a written statement to DiVenere in which he admitted to the relationship, and wrote “I am very sorry and embarrassed to report this. I know this is my fault. I am sorry to have hurt the youngster in this process,” according to the warrant.

The relationship, he said, began in the fall. “We would talk about attraction towards each other,” he said, according to the warrant. He described how the sexual contact evolved to the point where they were having intercourse as often as twice a week in his classroom closet.

The student provided more information to police about what occurred and her age at the time. She also described the progression in the warrant: “I do not know what exactly Joseph Rajkumar has said, but the short story (that even he cannot deny) is that he used me for sex and made me believe that it was OK.”


Wesleyan Failed to Protect Woman From Assault

Federal Lawsuit Says Wesleyan Failed To Protect Woman From Assault At Fraternity House Called A ‘Rape Factory’
Former Student’s Lawsuit Names University, Fraternity, Property Owner As Defendants
October 05, 2012 | By ALAINE GRIFFIN, agriffin@courant.com, The Hartford Courant

MIDDLETOWN — A former Wesleyan University student who was assaulted two years ago during a Halloween fraternity party filed a federal lawsuit Friday accusing the school of failing to protect her from dangers at the fraternity, which she claims was known on campus as the “Rape Factory.”

The 27-page lawsuit, filed electronically Friday at U.S. District Court in Connecticut by a Maryland woman identified as “Jane Doe,” charges Wesleyan with violating Title IX, the federal gender-equity law, by failing “to supervise, discipline, warn or take other corrective action” against the Mu Epsilon chapter of Beta Theta Pi fraternity, actions that it says could have prevented the assault. The lawsuit says the student was raped.
http://articles.courant.com/images/pixel.gif
http://articles.courant.com/images/pixel.gif

Jane Doe, after reporting the incident, became a target of those who protested a recommendation by Wesleyan officials that students avoid the fraternity, the lawsuit says. They chanted “Free Beta” outside her dorm and other places she was at on campus, according to the lawsuit.

“Wesleyan did nothing to prevent, and was deliberately indifferent to the harm caused to Jane Doe by the rape and outrageous sexual harassment and intimidation that followed her everywhere on campus,” the lawsuit says.

The school, it says, “acted with deliberate indifference towards the rights of Jane Doe and other female students to a safe and secure education environment thus materially impairing Jane Doe’s ability to pursue her education at Wesleyan in violation of the requirements of Title IX.”

In the lawsuit, Beta Theta Pi is depicted as a troubled place with “a long-documented history of dangerous misconduct, student injuries and numerous sexual assaults of women.” The lawsuit says the chapter lost its recognition from Wesleyan as a student organization in 2005 and instead gained “the reputation in the Wesleyan community as the ‘Rape Factory.’”

The lawsuit says that Wesleyan warned students in an email in March 2010 to stay away from the fraternity, saying that the school “could not ensure students’ safety on the premises.”

Jane Doe, a freshman in the fall of 2010, was unaware of that warning from seven months earlier and went to the frat house’s Halloween party on Oct. 30, 2010, and was raped in a locked room, the lawsuit says.

She charges in the lawsuit that she told the resident assistant in her dorm about the assault the next day, Oct. 31, but that the resident assistant did not call police, campus safety officials or school administrators.

Jane Doe was unable to officially report the assault until Nov. 1, 2010, because the student health services were closed on Oct. 31, 2010, which was a Sunday, the suit said.

“Wesleyan advised that she could go to the hospital, but offered neither transportation or accompaniment,” the lawsuit says. “Wesleyan did not contact its rape counselor … offer any other services or other academic help” to Jane Doe.

According to the lawsuit, following Jane Doe’s reporting of the incident to Wesleyan, school officials again advised in a campuswide email that students stay away from the frat house. In early 2011, the school terminated the fraternity’s status as program housing. Eventually, Jane Doe’s identity became known on campus and those angry about the ban on the fraternity staged protests at the woman’s dorm and at other places on campus, the suit says.
http://articles.courant.com/images/pixel.gif

“The protests led to Wesleyan’s revocation of the policy. A reconciliation meeting with student protestors and administrators was held at the Beta House,” the lawsuit states.

The woman — described in the lawsuit as “an exceptional student” in math, science and music “before the rape” — secluded herself and hid in her room, missing classes and meals, the lawsuit says.

She eventually withdrew from Wesleyan and transferred to another school, said Timothy O’Keefe, of Kenny, O’Keefe & Usseglio of Hartford, who represents the woman along with Douglas Fierberg of Bode & Grenier in Washington, D.C.

“These are, obviously, serious allegations of negligence against the college and the fraternity defendants. We intend to prove that they are all legally responsible for the harms that this young woman has suffered,” O’Keefe said in an interview Friday. “The harms and legal damages that this young woman suffered were preventable.”

The man accused of the assault, John O’Neill of Yorktown, N.Y., was not a Wesleyan student and was “a guest of a Beta member” that weekend, according to the lawsuit. He was originally charged with first-degree sexual assault, according to a Courant news report. He is currently serving a 15-month prison sentence at Osborn Correctional Institution in Somers after pleading no contest in June to charges of third-degree assault and first-degree unlawful restraint.


Lawsuit Filed Against Wesleyan and Beta

By Christina Norris, Assistant News Editor
Thursday, October 18, 2012

Kathy Lee/Staff Photographer

Nearly two years after being sexually assaulted at the Beta Theta Pi (Beta) fraternity house on the night of October 30, 2010, an anonymous former student has filed a federal lawsuit against the University. She is also suing the national Beta fraternity, the local Mu Epsilon chapter, and the Raymond Duy Baird Memorial Association, which owns the Mu Epsilon property.

The assailant, John O’Neill, was a non-student and a guest of a Beta brother that weekend. He plead no contest to unlawful restraint and is currently serving a 15-month sentence at a correctional institution in Somers, Conn. The victim of the assault, a Maryland woman referred to in the 27-page lawsuit as “Jane Doe,” is suing for an unstated amount greater than $75,000.

“Wesleyan cannot comment on pending litigation,” Director of Media Relations Lauren Rubenstein wrote in an email to The Argus. “Wesleyan takes matters concerning sexual assault very seriously and has dedicated resources to deal with this important issue.”

The suit claims that both the University and the fraternity failed to do enough to prevent such an assault from occurring, and that the University did little to help the student after she reported the incident. The suit accuses the defendants of failing to uphold Title IX, the federal gender-equality law. According to Title IX, educational programs receiving federal funding cannot allow discrimination on the basis of sex.

“When you seek to obtain taxpayer-supported funding from the federal government in this context, you make an agreement to abide by certain federal statutes that are designed to protect women from gender-based discrimination,” wrote Timothy O’Keefe, one of Jane Doe’s attorneys, in an email to The Argus. “We plan to prove to a jury that Wesleyan University did not live up to its end of the bargain in this circumstance. As a result, one of its young, female students suffered significant life-altering harm.”

The lawsuit alleges that the University did not adequately warn students to stay away from the fraternity preceding the incident.

On March 5, 2010, Assistant Vice President and Dean of Students Richard Culliton and Vice President for Student Affairs Mike Whaley sent an email to students warning them that, as Public Safety did not have jurisdiction at Beta’s off-campus house at the time, the University could not guarantee students’ safety there. However, Doe was not yet a student at the University when the email was sent. The lawsuit states that she was unaware of the potential dangers when she attended a party at the house.

According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff, a freshman at the time, reported the assault to her Resident Advisor (RA) the day after it occurred, but her RA did not report it to an administrator. It further states that once Doe was able to report the incident to an administrator, it was recommended that she go to the hospital, but that she was not offered transportation or accompaniment.

Afterward, the suit reports, when Doe began to suffer academically, administrators aware of her situation did not suggest that she lighten her workload, nor did they offer any additional academic support despite requests. Eventually, Doe transferred to another school.

“The lawsuit makes some very serious allegations against Wesleyan and the Fraternity defendants,” O’Keefe wrote. “We intend to present evidence that the defendants were negligent in the handling of this matter.”

According to the lawsuit, two students reported being sexually assaulted at the Beta House during Halloween weekend of 2010. Subsequently, University administrators sent an email that advised students not to visit the fraternity.

“These recent reports have renewed our concern about illegal and unsafe behavior on Beta’s premises, as well as our concern for the safety and well-being of Wesleyan students living at the residence or visiting the house,” Director of Public Safety Dave Meyer, along with Whaley, wrote in an email to students dated Nov. 9, 2010. “We remind all members of the community that this privately-owned house does not have any formal relationship with the University. Further, we advise all Wesleyan students that they should avoid the residence because we cannot establish the safety of the premises.”

Controversy regarding the lack of jurisdiction of the University over the fraternity culminated in an email sent in February 2011 with an announcement of a new University policy that appeared to ban students from attending off-campus social gatherings and from residing in off-campus housing beginning in the fall of 2011.

“President Roth asked for this policy revision to address the problematic issue of having residential organizations that appear to function as Wesleyan entities yet have no Wesleyan oversight,” Whaley wrote in an email sent to students on Feb. 14, 2011. “DKE, Psi U, and Alpha Delt are recognized as part of program housing and are thus not affected by this change. This revised policy would, however, have major consequences for Beta which has chosen to not participate in program housing and is therefore not recognized by the University.”

Many students reacted angrily to the announcement and said it was too broad in nature. It was subsequently revised, and Beta agreed to return its still-privately-owned house to campus as a program house. However, before revisions were made, some Beta members and other upset students held “Free Beta” protests around campus.

According to the lawsuit, Jane Doe, whose identity had allegedly become known to some Beta members, felt targeted by such protests.

“These ‘Free Beta’ protests sexually harassed and intimidated Jane Doe and, likely, any woman who would report sexual violence,” the lawsuit reads. “They also restricted her movement on campus and her access to educational opportunities.”

The lawsuit further claims that although the assailant is not and never was a member of the fraternity, Beta members are still partly responsible for failing to prevent such conduct. It cites the Office of Residential Life’s “Community Standards and Residential Regulations,” which states that, when residents host a gathering, they will be held accountable for the actions of their guests, and that if guest activity causes any harm to persons or property, both the responsible person and the hosts may be held financially responsible. Whether or not this applies when students are in an off-campus house is not clear from the policy.

The lawsuit also alleges that Beta has had a history of sexual misconduct.

“Beta House, its residents, and members of Fraternity Defendants [the local Mu Epsilon chapter and national Beta Theta Pi fraternity] have a long-documented history of sexual misconduct at this location including, upon information and belief, numerous sexual assaults of women and other circumstances resulting in injury to and hospitalization of students,” the lawsuit states. “Fraternity Defendants’ misconduct was so pervasive that Beta House earned a reputation on Wesleyan’s campus as the ‘Rape Factory.’”

According to Beta members, such a reputation for mistreating women, if it does exist, is not deserved.

“Our concern first and foremost is for the well-being of the woman involved in this situation,” Mu Epsilon president Elliot Albert ’14 wrote in an email to The Argus. “Our Fraternity prides itself on the respectful treatment of all women—at all times.”

A statement issued by the local Beta chapter and members from the administration of the national fraternity echoed Albert’s sentiments.

“Beta Theta Pi has long prided itself on the respectful treatment of all women,” the statement reads. “With hundreds of women serving as chapter advisors, house directors, and educational faculty to 8,000 undergraduate Beta students across North America […] and a full roster of women working in senior-level management positions at the Fraternity’s international office in Oxford, Ohio, Beta has a long-standing culture and reputation of inclusivity, respect for all and a pointed focus of developing character and integrity in its members.”

Many students have objected to the claim that Beta was at any point colloquially labeled a “Rape Factory.” One anonymous senior said that he had never heard the term used before the lawsuit.

“This point [regarding the term ‘Rape Factory’] keeps coming up when I talk to kids about this,” he said. “Either the media, or the lawyer, or someone must have made it up.”

This student objected to the stigmatization of Beta that he has noticed during his time as a Wesleyan student.

“I think it’s problematic,” he said. “Any kind of stigma is just a generalization. To generalize that as a group all Beta members are rapists is really terribly misguided and just wrong.”

The case has garnered attention from national media. The Hartford Courant released an article about the lawsuit on Friday, Oct. 5, which alerted many members of the University community to the situation. Soon after, The Huffington Post, Salon.comGawker.com, and numerous other online journals reported on the story.

Reactions to the news among members of the University community have been strong. One anonymous graduate of the University shared hir anger by beginning a blog called “Bad Publicity Wesleyan,” which states that its purpose is to change campus culture and empower potential targets of sexual assault. The blog contains pictures of buildings on campus, including the Memorial Chapel and Beta’s house, with phrases like, “Rape Factory,” and “Take Revenge Now,” respectively, written across them.

“The very institution of Wesleyan upholds policies that protect assaulters and shuts off options for victims in favor of a code of silence to protect the image of the university and its stratospherically privileged student body,” the anonymous blogger wrote. “It is time to take matters into our own hands and take power from the rapists and their defenders.”

Vincent Vecchione ’07 and Holly Wood ’08 have begun an online petition that proposes that the Office of Residential Life analyze every previous report of sexual assault that was filed with Public Safety or with the Office of Residential Life to determine whether or not each response was adequate.

“No Wesleyan student should feel unsafe on campus,” the petition reads. “As alumni we are demanding that Wesleyan ensure it has done everything in its power to protect students both past and present from reported incidences of sexual misconduct…. A public and comprehensive audit is the best way to move toward policies that better ensure student safety and support survivors of crimes.”

On campus as well, the lawsuit has sparked discussion and reflection. Several students who were not present when the assault took place also expressed surprise when they first heard about the lawsuit.

“I’ve heard people talking about it, and I’ve initiated conversation about it,” said Anna Cocuzzo ’16. “I think that if people read up on it they would find it very shocking what happened to her. It’s something that you totally wouldn’t expect to happen at Wesleyan. That’s really not the image I had of the University when I decided to come here.”

Another first-year student who wished to remain anonymous said he was also struck by the news.

“My friends and I have talked about it,” the student said. “I found it really surprising. I think the University should have tried harder to be more available to [the victim].”

One senior who also wished to remain anonymous does not see the University as culpable.

“This incident has caused a lot of pain and suffering for the survivor,” the student wrote in an email to The Argus. “However, I do not believe that what happened to her is the fault of the University as Wesleyan makes great efforts in educating its staff, particularly Residential Life student staff, to deal with and assist in situations such as this. On the other hand Beta and the students that threw the party should be sued and face criminal action.”

As of now, it is unknown when, or if, the case will go to court.


Emotional Distress Damages for Breach of Contract

The provision of personal care services abounds in our society.  Many of these situations involves the delivery of various services to children, the elderly and to the intellectually disabled or challenged at daycare and assisted living facilities.  This has become “big business” in Connecticut and other states.  These services are typically rendered pursuant to a contract of some type entered into by the facility and the parent of a child or the adult child of an elderly person.

When these contracts are violated by the facility, the parent or adult child is entitled to sue the facility for the breach of that contract.  A question that will arise in such a case is whether the damages claimed in such a lawsuit will be limited to “pecuniary” or “out of pocket” losses or will emotional distress damages also be allowed?  The answer to this question may impact the overall viability of the potential claim and could affect the damaged person from obtaining legal accountability for the facility’s wrongdoing.

 While this question has not yet been fully addressed by Connecticut’s appellate courts, one Superior Court did analyze the issue and refused to dismiss a claim for emotional distress damages arising from a breach of a personal services contract.  In that case, the parents of a severely intellectually disabled daughter signed a contract to place their daughter in a residential facility that provided services to young adults with neurological disabilities.  Under the contract, the parents paid tuition to the facility.  As part of her care, the facility agreed to provide their daughter with her prescribed medications.  While in the facility’s care, their daughter’s physical condition declined substantially.  An investigation determined that employees of the facility had been stealing the daughter’s medication.

This situation not only caused the parent’s daughter great harm, but it caused them to suffer significant amounts of emotional distress.  They sought damages in their breach of contract lawsuit for their severe emotional distress.  The facility sought to have that claim stricken from the lawsuit but the court refused to do so.  The court held that although some of the damages claimed by the parents might be considered “tortlike”, they could still be recovered in a breach of personal services contract lawsuit because damages for emotional distress were “reasonably forseeable” in this situation.

If you have suffered severe emotional distress arising out of a breach of a personal services contract, please contact us for a free legal consultation.


Connecticut Superior Court Judge Upholds Negligent Security Jury Verdict

In a recent case tried in New Britain Superior Court, Judge Cynthia Swienton upheld a jury verdict for a plaintiff who was assaulted at a nightclub by a nightclub employee.  The plaintiff had filed suit against the nightclub claiming that the defendant establishment failed to provide its patrons with a reasonable amount of safety and protection from harm.  The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff and awarded him financial compensation for his medical bills, lost wages and pain and suffering.  The defendant asked the court to overturn the jury’s verdict.  The court refused and held that, “the defendants did not take adequate action to prevent the assault…”
If you would like to consult with a Crime Victim Lawyer, please contact us by using the Free Case Evaluation Form.

Page 21 of 22« First...202122