A Suffolk County jury has awarded former MIT biologist David Sabatini $6 million in his defamation lawsuit against Kristin Knouse, the fellow scientist whose sexual harassment allegations led to his 2021 ouster from the Whitehead Institute. The jury found on October 16, 2026 that Knouse defamed Sabatini and interfered with his ability to make a living, and it rejected her counterclaims that he sexually harassed and retaliated against her, The New York Times (via Boston.com) and The Boston Globe (via STAT) reported. Knouse’s lawyer, Ellen Zucker, said she will appeal.
The verdict came after five years of litigation and two appellate decisions that shaped what the jury heard. Here is what each side says, and what the courts decided along the way.
The verdict
- The award. The jury of seven women and six men directed Knouse to pay $6 million plus interest, the Globe reported. Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly listed the case as Sabatini v. Knouse in Suffolk Superior Court before Judge Christopher Barry-Smith.
- The counterclaims. The jury rejected Knouse’s claims of sexual harassment and retaliation.
- Whitehead not a party. The Whitehead Institute said its earlier legal claims had already been dismissed and that “the decision and judgment only apply to Drs. Sabatini and Knouse,” according to the Times.
What each side says
Sabatini ran a lab at Whitehead in Cambridge for 24 years. He was forced out in 2021 after an internal investigation concluded that he had a sexual relationship with Knouse, a younger colleague over whom he had a career-influencing role, and that his lab had a sexualized atmosphere, the Times reported. Knouse said the relationship was coerced. Sabatini has said it was consensual and that Knouse set out to have him fired after he became interested in another woman.
“It’s surreal,” Sabatini, 58, told the Times. “I’ve been dreaming about this moment for all this time.” Zucker said, “The sad reality of our time is that society still has a difficult time believing women and appreciating the difficulty they encounter with men who too often control their fate,” and that Knouse “came into court and told the truth.” Knouse is an assistant professor of biology at MIT. Sabatini now works for a Prague research institute and its Boston-area branch.
The anti-SLAPP ruling: why the case went to trial
Massachusetts’ anti-SLAPP statute, G.L. c. 231, § 59H, lets a defendant seek early dismissal of claims based on “petitioning activity,” such as statements made to influence a government body. Knouse and Whitehead both used it. In Sabatini v. Knouse, 105 Mass. App. Ct. 174 (2025), the Appeals Court said no:
- Private reports are not petitioning. Knouse “made her reports in private, first to a select group of colleagues and then to the [law firm] investigators during a private workplace investigation,” and at the time “neither NIH nor any other governmental body was involved,” the court wrote. So her special motion to dismiss was properly denied.
- The institute’s statements were privileged. The Appeals Court upheld dismissal of Sabatini’s defamation and interference claims against Whitehead and its director, because they shared the investigation’s finding with people who had a “common interest” in it, which made the statements conditionally privileged. Sabatini’s own allegations showed they had reason to believe the statements and did not act with malice, the court said.
The SJC ruling: Knouse’s counterclaim revived
Knouse’s counterclaim relied on G.L. c. 214, § 1C, which says “[a] person shall have the right to be free from sexual harassment” as defined in the employment and education discrimination laws, and lets the Superior Court award damages. The trial judge and the Appeals Court held that in the academic setting the statute allows claims only against educational institutions, not individuals.
In Sabatini v. Knouse, SJC-13781, decided May 19, 2026, the Supreme Judicial Court reversed. “[I]n the academic context, the sexual harassment statute permits claims against individual perpetrators of sexual harassment,” Justice Wendlandt wrote. “Nothing in the statute’s plain meaning shields individuals who perpetrate sexual harassment.” The court noted the statute mirrors the privacy statute, G.L. c. 214, § 1B, under which individuals can be sued. That ruling let Knouse take her harassment claim to the jury, which then rejected it.
Defamation in Massachusetts, briefly
- Truth is a defense. Under G.L. c. 231, § 92, a defendant in a libel case “may introduce in evidence the truth of the matter,” and “the truth shall be a justification unless actual malice is proved.”
- Conditional privilege can be lost. A privilege for statements shared with people who have a common interest can be lost through excessive publication, knowing or reckless falsity, or actual malice, the Appeals Court explained.
- Not every complaint is protected petitioning. The anti-SLAPP statute protects statements reasonably aimed at reaching a government body. A report made inside a private workplace investigation, without more, did not qualify here.
What comes next
Knouse plans to appeal. Post-trial motions and an appeal can take many months, and the judgment is not final while they are pending.
Frequently asked questions
Did David Sabatini win his lawsuit?
Yes. On October 16, 2026, a Suffolk County jury found that Kristin Knouse defamed Sabatini and interfered with his ability to make a living, awarded him $6 million plus interest, and rejected her harassment and retaliation counterclaims. Knouse plans to appeal.
What did the SJC decide in Sabatini v. Knouse?
On May 19, 2026, the SJC held that G.L. c. 214, § 1C allows sexual harassment claims against individual harassers in the academic context, not only against schools. That revived Knouse’s counterclaim, which the jury later rejected.
Can you be sued for defamation for reporting sexual harassment in Massachusetts?
It can happen. In this case the Appeals Court held that private reports to colleagues and to an employer’s outside investigators were not “petitioning activity” protected by the anti-SLAPP statute. Statements shared with people who have a common interest can be conditionally privileged, but the privilege can be lost through reckless falsity or malice, and truth is a defense.
Sources: The New York Times via Boston.com, October 19, 2026; The Boston Globe via STAT, October 16, 2026; Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, October 26, 2026. Sabatini v. Knouse, SJC-13781 (May 19, 2026), and Sabatini v. Knouse, 105 Mass. App. Ct. 174 (2025), read in full on CourtListener. G.L. c. 214, § 1C and c. 231, § 92 read at malegislature.gov. General information, not legal advice.