Sexual harassment and assault by female LSE staff

results in largest lawsuits in history of Higher Education


High Court finds LSE in Breach of Duty of Care and in Breach of Contract

in the Largest Lawsuits in the History of Higher Education


“My family and I are pleased with the outcome of this landmark High Court trial. The judgment that the LSE was found to be in multiple breaches of its duty of care as well as in breach of contract is entirely unsurprising as Lord Chief Justice Woolf’s high-profile LSE ethics investigation revealed serious ethics, management and governance failures at the LSE.  The High Court’s damning indictment of the LSE is crucial to litigating my multi-million pound Employment Tribunal case against the LSE.”

Lord Chief Justice Woolf, investigator of LSE ethics breaches:

“A disconcerting number of failures in communication                                      and governance within the LSE.”

“The mistakes and errors of judgment go beyond those that could be expected from an institution of the LSE’s distinction.”

“The pattern is such that I am driven to the conclusion that there were shortcoming in the governance structure and management at the LSE.”

“It falls down on the first hurdle in not having an Ethics Code, adopted by the institution, which sets out clearly the values, principles and procedures which everyone associated with the LSE ought to comply.  The establishment and embedding of this code is the highest priority.”

“The onslaught undoubted seriously damaged the LSE’s reputation.                     It caused significant distress to staff, students & academics at the LSE.”

LSE Chair, Alan Elias:

“The Complainant has been on sick leave since 12 December 2012.

The School has received regular and consistent information

about the Complainant’s poor health.

Accordingly, the Complainant should have been

supported and treated with sensitivity by the School.

The Panel note that the formal complaint of harassment

made against the Complainant was eventually not upheld and that

the Complainant should have been treated accordingly at all times.

... the human story was somewhat lost.

The Director of the School should write to the Complainant

acknowledging that there were... failings in the handling of the School

of communications between the School and the Complainant and...

deficiencies in the way the investigation into harassment was carried out

and to apologise to the Complainant accordingly.

As a goodwill gesture... the School reimburses

the reasonable legal costs incurred by the Complainant...”

LSE President and Director, Craig Calhoun:

“Dear [award-winning faculty member],

I have received... the report of the Grievance Panel...

to consider your grievances against me and other employees of the School.

Having considered the Grievance Panel’s report and recommendations,

I am writing to acknowledge that the Panel concluded that there were failings...

I apologise for these failings.

I also acknowledge that [the LSE’s investigator] identified

deficiencies in the way in which [the LSE’s HR Director] and others

carried out the investigation against you.

Again, I am sorry that these deficiencies occurred...”

LSE Chair, Dame Shirley Pearce:

“I think we need to be assured that our processes and procedures for managing complaints and grievances mean that future cases are likely to be resolved more speedily and with less risk and distress to all involved.”

Emerging Press coverage of LSE scandal

(click on logos)


High Court finds Obsessive LSE Stalker was Infatuated with

Award-winning Internationally-renowned Economist

High Court Judgment:

“It is now apparent that she [Miss D] had become infatuated with the claimant... showing ‘dog-like devotion’.”

“...Miss D’s style of dress was inappropriate, she would often be in short skirts and low-cut tops. ...Miss D was not dressing appropriately to represent the LSE.”

“...Miss D’s ‘obsessive’ behaviour, her dress and how she acted towards the claimant...”

“...behaviour bizarre...”

“Miss D had developed something of an infatuation for the claimant.”

“...Miss D did behave in a provocative, even sexually provocative manner towards the claimant, it would not be inconsistent with her previous behaviour at the LSE.”

“I accept that Miss D’s conduct... caused the claimant considerable concern.”

“There is nothing in the evidence before the court to suggest that the claimant positively encouraged any behaviour or advances by Miss D...”


Joanne Hay, senior LSE administrator, ‘wretched drunken nightmare’ & spurned perpetrator of sexual assault, illegally defamed the Claimant.

Highest-paid Director in LSE history, Nemat Shafik, refuses to investigate gross sexual misconduct by females.

Senior LSE Administrator, Joanne Hay

initiated a drunken sexual-assault

on an unsuspecting LSE professor.

Ms Hay, who was publicly-humiliated in the High Court trial, harbours a malicious vendetta against the innocent Dr Piepenbrock for rejecting her drunken sexual advance at the LSE, and illegally defamed him in the media.

Click here for more on this breaking news.

International Institute for Strategic LeadershipHome.html

LSE postgraduate teaching assistant

(dressed as a call-girl/escort/prostitute)

stalked & exposed herself to award-winning LSE professor.

High Court Judgment:

“My view is that those [LSE staff] who were purporting to deal with the matter were passing the buck, one to the other, disclaiming any responsibility for decisive action.

“In my judgment there were a series of failures on the part of the defendant to properly manage... Miss D. Each of these failures represented a breach of the duty of care owed by the defendant to the claimant.”


“I am an economist, not an escort.  The LSE can not force me (or any other happily-married parent) to have sex with any LSE student or employee as a precondition of their employment at the LSE.

The LSE must stop violating UK law and investigate all grievances of gross sexual misconduct - even if perpetrated by females - as in the cases of ‘Ms D’ and Joanne Hay.”

LSE stalker’s penchant for

dressing/behaving provocatively

Saul Estrin

Disgraced (former) Head

Department of Management

Gwyn Bevan

Disgraced (former) Co-Head

Department of Management

Joanne Hay

Disgraced (former) Manager

Department of Management

The disgraced LSE Head of Legal, Kevin Haynes, possesses no legal qualifications,

a fact which the High Court judge ridiculed and condemned before she found

the LSE to be in multiple breaches of duty of care and breach of contract:

High Court question: “Mr Haynes, you are a qualified lawyer presumably.”

Mr Haynes: “No, I am not.”

High Court question: “Any legal qualifications?”

Mr Haynes: “No.”

High Court judge: “You [the LSE] have got what passes for the Legal Department,

where... the head of it is not even a practicing lawyer.”

Just before Kevin Haynes nervously took the stand in the High Court,

he was overheard loudly stating to his colleague that

he regretted his marriage to his eastern European wife and his problematic son.

The IISL can not confirm the truth validity of Mr Haynes’ rather sad statement.

Kevin Haynes

Disgraced LSE Head of Legal

Michael Barzelay

Disgraced (former) Co-Head

Department of Management

Prior to her public humiliation in the High Court,

the disgraced Ms Hay sent a desperate email to her fellow unethical LSE colleagues,

whimpering about her coming testimony

and fearing having to look at the Claimant.

Case Summary:

An autistic happily-married father and internationally-renowned economist and award-winning professor at the London School of Economics - whose ground-breaking research long-predicted trends including the global financial crisis, Brexit and Trump - was stalked and sexually harassed by Julie Katherine Dipuppo, an obsessive and unstable American postgraduate student and teaching assistant, who exposed herself to him in a research meeting.  The professor spurned Ms Dipuppo’s unwanted advance, terminated her employment with him and filed a sexual harassment grievance against her.  In spite of corroborating independent eyewitness evidence, as well as evidence in which Ms Dipuppo admitted her gross sexual misconduct on social media, the LSE refused to investigate the professor’s serous grievance and instead initiated a university-wide cover-up.

In order to hide her transgressions and firing/sacking, Ms Dipuppo inverted the sexual harassment story to her mother, Connie in the US, who then initiated a false grievance against the innocent professor, without her daughter’s knowledge and against her wishes.  Ms Dipuppo therefore felt she had no choice but to follow through with the false and malicious allegations and she launched an international defamation campaign against the innocent professor, who was immediately presumed to be guilty by the LSE prior to any investigation, punished publicly, harassed and bullied into an autistim-related, career-ending illness and disability.

Ms Dipuppo’s false and malicious allegations were eventually determined by the LSE to be not proven and the 32-year-old woman has since fled the country and changed her surname to Rufo, her mother’s maiden name.  The LSE’s Chairman, Alan Elias forced the LSE’s President and Director, Craig Calhoun to write a formal apology letter to the innocent professor before stepping down as the highest-paid Director in the history of he LSE.   Multiple senior LSE officials involved with this landmark case had formal grievances filed against them, and have since left the LSE.  The disabled professor has refused to accept the LSE’s multiple increasing offers (into six figures) to settle out-of-court and instead he has filed two separate multi-million pound lawsuits against the LSE for the loss of his esteemed career, which are believed to be the largest lawsuits of their kind in the history of Higher Education.  The internationally-renowned professor, whose public lectures on his ground-breaking research commanded over $10,000 per hour. stated that he intends that the majority of any damages awarded would go to charity and he simply wants to do his part to ensure that the LSE’s unethical behaviour does not harm other innocent victims (whether male or female) in the future.

Former Lord Chief Justice Woolf, who famously conducted a high-level inquiry into unethical practices at the LSE, condemned the LSE for lacking a culture of ethics.  The innocent disabled professor’s landmark lawsuits are the first tests - and abject failures - of Lord Woolf’s ethics recommendations at the LSE.

In the High Court trial, the judge determined that Ms Dipuppo Rufo - who tellingly refused to be a witness -  was obsessed with the professor, who was determined to have done nothing to encourage her stalking.  The judge made damning findings of multiple breaches of duty of care and breach of contract against the LSE (primarily Joanne Hay, Saul Estrin, Gwyn Bevan, Kevin Haynes, Daniel Linehan, Chris Gosling), which are significant findings for the professor in his pending discrimination and unfair dismissal lawsuit to be heard in 2020. All was foreshadowed by the Lord Woolf inquiry.

The LSE’s reputation was once again damaged in the international media, as also foreshadowed by the Lord Woolf inquiry.  In retaliation for being humiliated in the media, the LSE retaliated by defaming the innocent professor, which resulted in him filing a multi-million pound defamation lawsuit - the largest in the history of Higher Education to be heard in the High Court in 2020, with the majority of any damages awarded going to charity.