The scholarship holder believes that NTNU has caused him PTSD. Suing the university for NOK 1.6 million.

Next Monday, NTNU must appear in court following accusations of, among other things, abuse of power, harassment and failure to follow up on warnings.

The male fellow who is suing the university believes that the behavior of his former supervisor, as well as NTNU’s follow-up, has caused him great psychological distress, and he is now demanding compensation and restitution.

For losses he has had, future losses and additional expenses, the scholarship holder claims NOK 285,000. In addition, there is future loss of income and restitution “determined at the discretion of the court”, according to the government attorney, calculated at just over NOK 1.35 million.

NTNU, for its part, is asking for a full acquittal in the case, and believes that there is no basis for liability for compensation.

This is clear from the final submissions that Khrono has been given access to.

The scholarship holder is employed at NTNU’s Faculty of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering, a faculty where it has been several work environment challenges in the past year.

Allegation of abuse of power, harassment and retaliation

The background to the case is that the fellow believes he is exposed to “persistent work pressure, abuse of power, harassment and retaliation, which clearly exceeds what can reasonably be expected in an employment relationship”, writes lawyer Tazmeen Ahmed from Advokatfirmaet Suleiman & Co in the plaintiff’s final submission.

She points out that the sequence of events that led to the fellow developing a post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) can be divided into two phases: First, the direct workload, the harmful work environment and the harassment, then the insufficient response and active retaliation from the university.

This is substantiated with “contemporary medical documentation” that shows a gradual deterioration of the fellow’s health, as well as confirmation from a psychological specialist that the fellow has developed PTSD as a result of the work situation, writes the lawyer.

The fellow should not have had any mental problems before he was employed as a fellow in the summer of 2020. In addition to PTSD, he now also has panic disorder, according to the final post.

“… it is further likely that NN (the fellow, journal note) will have a reduced work capacity in the future.”

NTNU’s rejection of grounds for liability is referred to as “not surprising, given the university’s history with similar cases”, and reference is made to a report which concludes that the working environment at parts of the faculty the scholarship holder is employed at is close to the limit of being indefensible.

— Did not receive training or information

Furthermore, the lawyer writes that the fellow did not receive any form of formal training in the administrative aspects of being employed, or information about his rights as an employee at the university. The main supervisor is said to have encouraged him to sign the scholarship contract without negotiating the salary because of “the institute’s financial situation.”

The scholarship holder must also have been required to work far beyond legal working hours, and even after he informed the main supervisor, who must have recognized that the workload had to be reduced, it must have continued in the same way. He must also have been required to do extensive work at the same time as he was 50 per cent on sick leave. This must have continued throughout 2021 and 2022.

It is pointed out that the fellow should have notified the conditions twice without this being addressed. The first notification should have been delivered in October 2022, shortly after he was “accused of conditions that had no root in reality” regarding the registration of vacation and absence.

“The defendant alleges NNs notification was handled as he had his main supervisor changed. However, it must be noted that this change took place several months later and only after notification of the initiation of legal action.”

The lawyer writes in the final submission that the fellow was eventually met with a “lack of understanding and was asked to put the case behind him” when he asked for a meeting in May 2023, after he had not received a response to his second notice two months earlier.

NTNU rejects all claims

NTNU, through government attorney Stina Eriksson, believes that there is no basis for any of the demands put forward by the scholarship holder.

She disputes the scholarship holder’s descriptions of the supervisor’s behaviour, and points out, among other things, that it has not been documented that the scholarship holder was required to do more work than the contract required.

In the closing statement of the government attorney, it also appears that there is also talk of allegations related to sexual harassment and attention in the lawsuit, which is not mentioned in the plaintiff’s closing statement.

When asked why the government attorney has chosen to emphasize this instead of the elements presented by the plaintiff in his closing submission, Eriksson replies to Khrono:

– In the final submission, we have, as usual, given a brief explanation of the state’s view of the allegations made by the other party during the case.

The government attorney writes in the final submission that the actions described in the case “do not reach the threshold for sexual harassment, which requires a certain degree of severity”, and it is also contested that any sexual attention has been proven.

Lawyer Eriksson further writes that it is their clear opinion that the cooperation problems between the research fellow and the main supervisor arose because the supervisor pointed out shortcomings in the research fellow’s holiday registration.

“Furthermore, it is stated that NTNU has done what can be expected to ensure a safe working environment,” she writes and points out that both the supervisor was changed and a psychologist was arranged.

“There is no basis for any of the demands that NN has promoted.”

The government attorney further points out that the calculations on which the compensation amounts are based are too high and the losses are not sufficiently substantiated.

The case will be heard over three days in the Oslo District Court.