The article doesn't say what evidence the plaintiff put forth to demonstrate that her educational opportunities had been harmed. Presumably, given the sentiments of the jury (the article says they tried to read a statement excoriating the university, but the judge wouldn't let them) even if she had made a modest showing they would have accepted it as satisfying the element for liability. They could have then factored it their perception of only minor harm to their calculation of damages.Jurors said they found for the UW, by a 10-2 vote, based on narrow legal ground, determining that the plaintiff's educational opportunities had not been sufficiently harmed by the university's handling of her complaint. She remained in school, kept a high grade-point average, and graduated.
When asked Thursday how the UW handled the case, one juror said: "You want a quote? Piss poorly."
Showing posts with label University of Washington. Show all posts
Showing posts with label University of Washington. Show all posts
Friday, November 06, 2009
Jury Finds for UW in Rape Case
Here is an update to yesterday's post about the trial against University of Washington regarding its handling of a student's rape charges against a football player. While jurors apparently viewed the UW's conduct as constituting deliberate indifference, they did not agree that the plaintiff satisfied another element for institutional liability under Title IX for peer harassment. According to the Seattle Times:
Thursday, November 05, 2009
UW Rape Case Goes to Trial
A jury will soon decide whether the University of Washington violated Title IX in its handling of claims that a football player had raped another student, his former girlfriend. As we have noted in a prior post, the victim, identified in court proceedings only as S.S., argues that university officials failed to encourage or inform S.S. of her rights to the university judicial disciplinary process so that the case could instead be handled by the athletic department. The athletic department, in turn failed to investigate her case because the perpetrator's status as a football player, suppressed the case to avoid negative publicity, and penalized him with community service and counseling rather than suspending him from games. Last year, the court of appeals in Washington agreed that these facts, if proven, would constitute deliberate indifference for which the university is liable under Title IX.
The case has tried before a jury in King County, Washington. The jury received the case yesterday and is deliberating today. At stake are damages up to $800,000.
(Via Ombuds Blog.)
The case has tried before a jury in King County, Washington. The jury received the case yesterday and is deliberating today. At stake are damages up to $800,000.
(Via Ombuds Blog.)
Monday, May 04, 2009
UW cuts swimming
University of Washington, experiencing a budget shortfall similar to many--if not most--universities these days, has made the difficult decision to cut its men's and women's swim teams. The cuts were a surprise, especially given the recent growing success of the teams at the national level.
The elimination of swimming with save the department $1.2 million. It must cut, however, a total of $2.8 million.
On a side note, it's been interesting to see, as schools cut teams, how much they are allegedly saving. It just exemplifies the differences between DI schools and everyone else. Two teams, relatively low-cost teams, at the DI level cost $1.2 million. For some schools, that's their whole athletic department budget!
The elimination of swimming with save the department $1.2 million. It must cut, however, a total of $2.8 million.
On a side note, it's been interesting to see, as schools cut teams, how much they are allegedly saving. It just exemplifies the differences between DI schools and everyone else. Two teams, relatively low-cost teams, at the DI level cost $1.2 million. For some schools, that's their whole athletic department budget!
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
UW Must Defend its Handling of Student Rape by Football Player
Yesterday the Washington State Court of Appeals reinstated a Title IX case against the University of Washington, paving the way for UW to defend at trial whether its handling of a football player's alleged rape of another student violated Title IX.
The plaintiff, referred in the opinion as S.S., was the student equipment manager for the UW football team. She alleges that in 2000, she was raped by then-UW football player Roc Alexander, (who is now in the NFL) , with whom she had recently ended a relationship. When athletic department officials found this out, they encouraged S.S. to submit to a mediation with the University ombudsman and did not inform her of the University's judicial disciplinary process or other options available to student rape victims. S.S. felt pressured to agree in order to keep her position with the Athletic Department.
The mediation was attended by the ombudsman, S.S., Alexander, and the assistant athletic director, Marie Tuite. S.S. argued that Alexander should be suspended from several games. Alexander recanted earlier statements of contrition and denied the allegation of rape. He also threatened to leave UW if he was suspended. Tuite stated that she would not consider suspending Alexander because the media "would ask why he was not playing" -- a statement that suggests she was primarily concerned about keeping the case out of the news. In the end, Tuite and the ombudsman decided that Alexander should attend counseling and perform community service.
The Court of Appeals determined that these facts, if proven, would satisfy the liability standard for peer harassment under Title IX. A jury could find on the facts alleged that the school's response constituted "deliberate indifference" to the reported rape, including such facts as: "a lack of appropriate discipline of her rapist,... keeping the matter out of the public eye to avoid negative publicity, offering only repeated mediation as an alternative remedial measure, repeatedly suggesting that S.S. leave her job with the football program where the rapist would remain, [and failing] to investigate...her rape report, and--in the absence of investigation--questioning her truthfulness...." (among other reasons).
Additionally, the court agreed that discrimination alleged by S.S. was sufficiently "severe and pervasive" to warrant liability -- even though, as UW argued, S.S. was only raped one time. The court supported its conclusion by comparing this case to others in which discrimination was deemed "pervasive" because the school contributed to the detrimental effects of an initial instance of harassment or assault.
According to the Seattle Times, the plaintiff is glad that "Finally, the courts are on my side -- at least for now." The UW, which hasn't yet decided whether it will appeal, contests S.S.'s version of the facts and maintains that S.S. never called the underlying incident a "rape" until she filed suit against university. But while it may not have direct bearing on the facts of this particular case, it is also worth noting that a "disturbing level of criminal conduct and hooliganism" -- including another instances of sexual assault in 2000 -- by UW football players, enabled and covered by former coach Rick Neuheisel and athletic director Barbara Hedges, has recently come to light.
Decision: S.S. v. Alexander and the University of Washington, 2008 WL 352618 (Wash. App. Div. 1, Feb. 11, 2008).
The plaintiff, referred in the opinion as S.S., was the student equipment manager for the UW football team. She alleges that in 2000, she was raped by then-UW football player Roc Alexander, (who is now in the NFL) , with whom she had recently ended a relationship. When athletic department officials found this out, they encouraged S.S. to submit to a mediation with the University ombudsman and did not inform her of the University's judicial disciplinary process or other options available to student rape victims. S.S. felt pressured to agree in order to keep her position with the Athletic Department.
The mediation was attended by the ombudsman, S.S., Alexander, and the assistant athletic director, Marie Tuite. S.S. argued that Alexander should be suspended from several games. Alexander recanted earlier statements of contrition and denied the allegation of rape. He also threatened to leave UW if he was suspended. Tuite stated that she would not consider suspending Alexander because the media "would ask why he was not playing" -- a statement that suggests she was primarily concerned about keeping the case out of the news. In the end, Tuite and the ombudsman decided that Alexander should attend counseling and perform community service.
The Court of Appeals determined that these facts, if proven, would satisfy the liability standard for peer harassment under Title IX. A jury could find on the facts alleged that the school's response constituted "deliberate indifference" to the reported rape, including such facts as: "a lack of appropriate discipline of her rapist,... keeping the matter out of the public eye to avoid negative publicity, offering only repeated mediation as an alternative remedial measure, repeatedly suggesting that S.S. leave her job with the football program where the rapist would remain, [and failing] to investigate...her rape report, and--in the absence of investigation--questioning her truthfulness...." (among other reasons).
Additionally, the court agreed that discrimination alleged by S.S. was sufficiently "severe and pervasive" to warrant liability -- even though, as UW argued, S.S. was only raped one time. The court supported its conclusion by comparing this case to others in which discrimination was deemed "pervasive" because the school contributed to the detrimental effects of an initial instance of harassment or assault.
According to the Seattle Times, the plaintiff is glad that "Finally, the courts are on my side -- at least for now." The UW, which hasn't yet decided whether it will appeal, contests S.S.'s version of the facts and maintains that S.S. never called the underlying incident a "rape" until she filed suit against university. But while it may not have direct bearing on the facts of this particular case, it is also worth noting that a "disturbing level of criminal conduct and hooliganism" -- including another instances of sexual assault in 2000 -- by UW football players, enabled and covered by former coach Rick Neuheisel and athletic director Barbara Hedges, has recently come to light.
Decision: S.S. v. Alexander and the University of Washington, 2008 WL 352618 (Wash. App. Div. 1, Feb. 11, 2008).
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Generation IX
Generation IX, a new documentary about the 2005 University of Washington championship women's volleyball team, airs on Seattle public television station KCTS tonight. After its tournament win, the team embarked on two week cultural and competitive exchange in China, where women's volleyball is "a national obsession." The documentary chronicles the team's journey. For more, see the filmmaker's website.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)