International Institute for Strategic LeadershipHome.html

.

Charismatic and conscientious, Dr Theodore Piepenbrock commanded the respect of colleagues and students alike. A senior teaching fellow at the London School of Economics, his achievements bestowed on him a seemingly unassailable confidence.


Happily married to a fellow academic, with a son he adored and an international reputation for entrepreneurial excellence, Theodore — known as Ted — appeared, six years ago, to have everything going for him.


... an assistant half his age whose infatuation with Ted...


... it became clear she had a crush on him; she dressed provocatively, behaved suggestively and became ever more obsessed with him... she appeared before him in a state of undress. Ted... rejected her advances sensitively.


... he’d... described her as ‘damaged’ and ‘unstable’, and a liar who used ‘feminine behaviours to get control over men.


After lodging her complaint, she circulated it among others in her department.


Months later, an internal investigation found the complaint against him ‘not proven’ and the LSE’s director apologised for its handling of the case.


Mrs Justice Nicola Davies said that... there had been a ‘series of failures’ in the LSE’s management of the complaint...


... Ted was cleared of any impropriety...


Ted... has launched an employment tribunal claim against the LSE, and announced this week he will appeal the High Court decision...


Of course, there is no denying he has suffered.”

Ms Hay, the “Wretched Drunken Nightmare”


An abusive and bullying senior LSE administrator, whose rejected drunken sexual advance directed at a happily-married award-winning LSE professor, is at the centre of a global sex scandal at the LSE.


When the internationally renowned economist, Dr Piepenbrock arrived at the LSE in 2011, he was immediately warned by colleagues of the abusive and bullying behaviour of the senior administrator of the LSE Department of Management, Joanne Hay.  He was particularly warned of her drunken behaviour and unwanted sexual advances.  One LSE faculty member (and former colleague of Dr Piepenbrock) provided the following disturbing testimony (which will be used as evidence in the upcoming defamation lawsuit against her and the LSE):


“Joanne was a complete drunken nightmare who was running the Department, and then going out to the restaurant every night after work and drinking £100 worth of wine on the Department’s budget with her staff.  That is how that Department was being run, by a couple of drunks who were just wretched people.  I have never seen anything like that before in my life.  The problem was... Joanne and HR are so awful at their jobs, that within a few months you have so much material to sue them with... because they have left themselves open to huge lawsuits.  How could they not have gotten rid of her?”



Ms Hay’s Drunken Sexual Advance


One evening in the Autumn of 2011, after Ms Hay (a woman in her 50s) had returned to her LSE office from one of her alcohol-fueled LSE parties, she met an unsuspecting Dr Piepenbrock (happily married and in his 40s) in an LSE elevator/lift as he had been working late and on his way home.  Ms Hay staggered towards Dr Piepenbrock and  stinking of alcohol, began to make an unwelcomed sexual advance towards him, putting her hand on his chest and stating:


“Let me know if there anything I can do to make your stay at the LSE more pleasureable.” 


Dr Piepenbrock politely, but firmly rejected her advance.  In response to this humiliating rejection, Ms Hay began a seven-year vendetta against the innocent professor, which continues to this day, when she defamed him in the international media, with false and malicious lies.


Ms Hay freely admits to her excessive drinking at the LSE, the need for her to monitor her excessive behaviour and the need for her to find a designated driver after excessive drinking at LSE parties, when she emailed her boss, Saul Estrin:


“Its the staff party this evening... I am on best behaviour therefore... As well as having to use public transport this evening...”



Ms Hay and the “LSE Harassment Machine”


LSE Professor Paul Willman, like Dr Piepenbrock, was also falsely accused of harassment by one of Ms Hay’s direct reports.  Ms Hay orchestrated another witch-hunt against the innocent Professor Willman, which like Dr Piepenbrock, resulted in the case not being proven and a lawsuit threatened by Professor Willman.  Professor Willman repeatedly referred to Ms Hay and the LSE as a “Harassment Machine” in emails to the Head of the Department of Management, Saul Estrin:


“...it depends on the LSE harassment machine and how Ted reacts to it.  I would make the call sooner rather than later if I felt the harassment machine would not then be loosed again on me.”



Ms Hay’s Illegal Retaliation


As a result of Dr Piepenbrock rejecting Ms Hay’s drunken sexual advance, she subsequently initiated a personal vendetta against the award-winning internationally renowned economist for rejecting her unwanted advances, by secretly trying to illegally terminate Dr Piepenbrock’s employment contract, seeking covert advice from LSE Human Resources:


Could you please send me a note about why we could not dismiss Dr Piepenbrock? And can’t relay the information to Saul [Head of Department]!



Ms Hay and Ms D, the Unstable Stalker


Returning to Ms D, the unstable stalker, when Dr Piepenbrock terminated her employment with him due to her gross sexual misconduct, Ms Hay contributed to inciting Ms D to lock herself in Dr Piepenbrock’s office and call security guards on him, thus initiating the global scandal that has resulted in the largest lawsuits in the history of Higher Education and has begun a serious backlash against the heretofore important #MeToo movement.



Ms Hay’s Humiliation in the High Court


Ms Hay, who was recently forced to give testimony in the High Court, was seen nervously shaking, sweating, stammering and speaking so fast on the stand that the Judge had to repeatedly stop her


Judge Nicola Davies: “Just stop.”

Joanne Hay:  “Sorry.”

Judge Nicola Davies: “You are speaking much too quickly.”

Joanne Hay:  “OK, sorry.”


[moments later]


Judge Nicola Davies: “All right.  We are going to stop now.  You are just speaking much too quickly.”

Joanne Hay:  “Sorry, I apologise.”


Ms Hay was then publicly-humiliated by the High Court judgment which declared that she and the LSE were in multiple breaches of duty of care and breach of contract against the innocent Dr Piepenbrock.




Ms Hay, “the Master Manipulator”, Illegally Defames Innocent Professor


In this Daily Mail article, Ms Hay appears to have defamed Dr Piepenbrock on the basis that she alleged that Dr Piepenbrock did not engage with the LSE’s investigation into Ms D’s grievance:


“refusing to co-operate, that makes me angry. I think he’s a master manipulator.” 


Ms Hay’s statement appears to have been a false and malicious lie, which the facts and evidence from the High Court case and judgment clearly reveals.


First, Dr Piepenbrock clearly “co-operated” when he filed a formal grievance against Ms D with his Head of Department, Gwyn Bevan on 19 November 2012 for her gross sexual misconduct which resulted in him terminating her working relationship with him.  Dr Piepenbrock’s grievance clearly laid out the facts of the case with irrefutable eyewitness testimony.  Gwyn Bevan wrote about Dr Piepenbrock’s grievance:


“...which gives a very different account from that of [Ms D].” 


In an extraordinary act, Ms Hay unethically prevented Dr Piepenbrock’s grievance from ever being investigated, and in fact Ms Hay lied for five years that Dr Piepenbrock’s grievance never existed.  High Court documents revealed that Dr Piepenbrock’s grievance did exist and Gwyn Bevan did in fact send Dr Piepenbrock’s grievance to Joanne Hay on 23 November 2012 for her to process with HR.  Ms Hay - aware of the grievance’s damning contents - made sure that the grievance was never processed.


Second, in spite of his serious illness, Dr Piepenbrock always agreed to answer in writing any questions that the LSE might have concerning Ms  D’s false and malicious allegations.  Although the LSE refused to send questions for approximately six months, when they finally did send questions, Dr Piepenbrock answered them in writing immediately.  LSE HR Director Mr Gosling acknowledged in an email to his HR colleague, Dr Piepenbrock’s answers to his investigation questions:


“These observations are in response to the questions... you sent to Dr Piepenbrock so we may be able to make some progress. I am sure that the further information and evidence that Dr Piepenbrock refers to [i.e. eyewitness evidence] would also be helpful.”


Mr Gosling then closed the investigation of Ms D’s false and malicious grievance, inexplicably stating that Dr Piepenbrock did not answer his questions.


Finally, the recent High Court judgment and the LSE Director’s 2014 formal apology letter to Dr Piepenbrock both clearly state that Dr Piepenbrock unequivocally did engage with the LSE’s investigation, which was determined by the LSE to be not proven.  


It appears therefore that Ms Hay’s defamatory statements in the Daily Mail are clear lies, motivated by personal revenge and the LSE and Ms Hay are now facing a multi-million pound defamation lawsuit.  


In an ironic twist to this sordid story, it turns out that Ms Hay was (and still is) the "master manipulator”.



Lord Chief Justice Woolf’s condemnation of the LSE’s Unethical Behaviour


Note that Ms Hay’s drunken pass at a junior colleague, over which she had power, occurred in 2011, just as Lord Chief Justice Woolf, had issued his damning report against unethical behaviour at the LSE stating:


“a disconcerting number of failures in communication and governance within the School.”


“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 central conclusion that there were shortcomings in the governance structure and management at the LSE.”


“It does not have an embedded code for dealing with ethics which everyone at the LSE knows they must comply.”


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



As a result of Lord Woolf’s damning report, the LSE was therefore forced to implement an LSE Ethics Code for the first time, which ironically states the following:


"Every member of the LSE community should behave honestly. They should communicate truthfully and openly with each other.


”Every member of the School community is responsible for upholding the Ethics Code. Breaches of the Code may be treated as offences under the existing disciplinary mechanisms for staff.”


"Those in leadership positions have a particular responsibility to set an example in their conduct and to promote and support good ethical behaviour."


“Ask yourself how you would explain your actions if... they were on the front page of a newspaper. What would be the impact on your reputation, or that of the School?”


Dr Piepenbrock files a formal grievance against Ms Hay


On 26 October 2018, Dr Piepenbrock filed a formal grievance of harassment against Ms Hay.  Unlike when Ms D filed a grievance as a former employee, the LSE has refused to acknowledge, let alone investigate this serious grievance.

Ms Hay, who was publicly-humiliated in the High Court trial,

harbours a malicious vendetta against Dr Piepenbrock

for rejecting her drunken sexual advance at the LSE.


Ms Hay has ironically emerged as

the “master manipulator” in the Daily Mail article

where she illegally defamed her innocent victim.

Note that although the Daily Mail has only allowed one comment to be posted,

there are approximately 4 times as many likes (79%) as dislikes (21%).

The Daily Mail readers appear once again, to have a clear and unified opinion.

Senior LSE administrator, Joanne Hay,

the spurned “wretched drunken nightmare”

and perpetrator of sexual assault at the LSE,

is the “master manipulator” at the center of

the largest lawsuits in the history of Higher Education