Mike
Well-known member
A Big Reversal in University of Colorado Sex Case
Thursday, September 6th by Robert Loblaw
Simpson v. University of Colorado, 06-1184 (10th Cir., Sept.6, 2007)
It's been a rough week for Division I football. First came Appalachian State's victory over Michigan. And now the Tenth Circuit has reversed summary judgment for the University of Colorado on Title IX claims by two women who allege that they were sexually assaulted by the school's football recruits.
Title IX makes it illegal for educational institutions that receive federal funding to discriminate or deny benefits based on sex. The plaintiffs allege that CU's football recruits were plied with alcohol and promised sex during their visits to campus, and that the resulting climate of debauchery caused them to be sexually assaulted at an off-campus party. The district court granted summary judgment to CU, concluding that there was no evidence that CU had actual notice of any harassment or that CU was indifferent to the harassment. Likewise, the district court did not think that the plaintiffs could show that CU's indifference caused the attacks.
The plaintiffs appealed and were joined by a Who's Who list of left-wing organizations as amici. In a decision issued this evening, the Tenth reverses. The Court explains that there is plenty of evidence that CU's recruiting program was completely out of hand by the time of the alleged assaults. Indeed, after some high profile allegations involving players, the football program revised its team handbook to urge players not to throw their careers away by engaging in sexually aggressive conduct. Among other tidbits of etiquette, the handbook advises players not to initiate sex with a woman who is passed out. But the program did not provide any guidance for recruits, nor did it advise their hosts about how to ensure appropriate behavior during recruiting visits.
Moreover, there was plenty of evidence that the football coach knew that harassment was continuing despite the handbook's advice. Indeed, the coach actively resisted efforts to reform the recruiting program even though he was aware of problems. Because the coach ranks pretty high in CU hierarchy, his knowledge and actions can be imputed to the University. Finally, the University's response to the allegations evidences a culture of intimidation and cover-up, rather than a true effort to eliminate sexually harassing behavior.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that there is enough evidence of CU's liability to send the plaintiffs' claims to a jury.
Posted Thu, 06 Sep 2007 19:10:18 and filed under Summary Judgment, Decision of the Day. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Thursday, September 6th by Robert Loblaw
Simpson v. University of Colorado, 06-1184 (10th Cir., Sept.6, 2007)
It's been a rough week for Division I football. First came Appalachian State's victory over Michigan. And now the Tenth Circuit has reversed summary judgment for the University of Colorado on Title IX claims by two women who allege that they were sexually assaulted by the school's football recruits.
Title IX makes it illegal for educational institutions that receive federal funding to discriminate or deny benefits based on sex. The plaintiffs allege that CU's football recruits were plied with alcohol and promised sex during their visits to campus, and that the resulting climate of debauchery caused them to be sexually assaulted at an off-campus party. The district court granted summary judgment to CU, concluding that there was no evidence that CU had actual notice of any harassment or that CU was indifferent to the harassment. Likewise, the district court did not think that the plaintiffs could show that CU's indifference caused the attacks.
The plaintiffs appealed and were joined by a Who's Who list of left-wing organizations as amici. In a decision issued this evening, the Tenth reverses. The Court explains that there is plenty of evidence that CU's recruiting program was completely out of hand by the time of the alleged assaults. Indeed, after some high profile allegations involving players, the football program revised its team handbook to urge players not to throw their careers away by engaging in sexually aggressive conduct. Among other tidbits of etiquette, the handbook advises players not to initiate sex with a woman who is passed out. But the program did not provide any guidance for recruits, nor did it advise their hosts about how to ensure appropriate behavior during recruiting visits.
Moreover, there was plenty of evidence that the football coach knew that harassment was continuing despite the handbook's advice. Indeed, the coach actively resisted efforts to reform the recruiting program even though he was aware of problems. Because the coach ranks pretty high in CU hierarchy, his knowledge and actions can be imputed to the University. Finally, the University's response to the allegations evidences a culture of intimidation and cover-up, rather than a true effort to eliminate sexually harassing behavior.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that there is enough evidence of CU's liability to send the plaintiffs' claims to a jury.
Posted Thu, 06 Sep 2007 19:10:18 and filed under Summary Judgment, Decision of the Day. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
