| Blog and Media Roundup - Saturday, December 9, 2017; News Roundup | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 9 2017, 04:41 AM (83 Views) | |
| abb | Dec 9 2017, 04:41 AM Post #1 |
|
http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article188879754.html KU pays $395,000 to settle sexual assault and harassment lawsuits By Mará Rose Williams mdwilliams@kcstar.com December 08, 2017 05:24 PM The University of Kansas paid out a total of $395,000 to settle lawsuits by two former KU rowers who claimed they were sexually assaulted by a former football player in campus housing. With no admission of liability, the university agreed to pay former rower Daisy Tackett $245,000 and former rower Sarah McClure $150,000. The settlement allots $102,000 of Tackett’s amount and $63,000 of McClure’s to the Brown and Curry Law Firm of Kansas City. The firm represented both women. ADVERTISING inRead invented by Teads The Tackett lawsuit was filed in Douglas County in March 2016. The McClure lawsuit was filed in April 2016. Both accused the university of violating Title IX, the federal law that protects against gender discrimination, including sexual assault and harassment. Never miss a local story. Sign up today for a free 30 day free trial of unlimited digital access. The suits were both dismissed last month at the request of the women and the university. Under the terms of the dismissal, the claims made by the two women cannot be raised in court again. The Star obtained the amounts of the settlements from a request under the Kansas Open Records Act. The settlement agreements say that they represent “a compromise of disputed claims,” and that the money paid “shall not be construed as an admission of liability or wrongdoing” on behalf of the university or the two women. University official said only that the case had been resolved. The attorney for the women, Dan Curry, would only say that the matter had been resolved and that his clients would not have a comment. The two-year legal battle began with a claim by Tackett in her lawsuit that she was raped in the fall of 2014, shortly after she arrived on the Lawrence campus. She was then an 18-year-old freshman living in Naismith Hall. Tackett said she was raped by the football player in his dorm room in KU’s Jayhawker Towers after the two left a party earlier that evening. McClure’s lawsuit said that in August 2015, less than a week into the fall semester of her freshman year, the same football player fondled her breasts in her apartment at Jayhawker Towers, where he also lived. McClure reported the incident to police. Tackett did not. No criminal charges were filed in either case. Later, separately, the women reported the incidents to university officials. Both lawsuits alleged that KU had been “deliberately indifferent” to the sexual harassment of a student by another student. They also contend that after the women reported the alleged attacks, they were not protected from retaliation by the accused student. In February, a federal judge ruled against a third claim in the Tackett suit — that KU allowed a hostile environment at Jayhawker Towers. A Title IX investigation into the women’s claims by KU’s office of Institutional Opportunity and Access was concluded in February 2016 and found that Tackett more likely than not had been assaulted by the football player, as she described. In McClure’s case, the office found that the football player had violated the school’s sexual harassment policy. The KU office, in its Title IX investigations, uses a preponderance of evidence standard; legal cases use an evidence standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. After the investigation the football player, Jordan Goldenberg Jr., was expelled. The Star’s Lynn Horsley contributed. Mará Rose Williams: 816-234-4419, @marawilliamskc Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article188879754.html#storylink=cpy |
![]() |
|
| abb | Dec 9 2017, 04:44 AM Post #2 |
|
https://deadspin.com/another-title-ix-coordinator-is-leaving-baylor-1821135767 Another Title IX Coordinator Is Leaving Baylor Diana Moskovitz 12/8/17 Another Title IX coordinator has resigned from Baylor University, making her the third person in a little more than a year to leave the office tasked with investigating reports of rape on campus, according to multiple local media reports. Baylor announced yesterday that Kristan Tucker is leaving the Baptist university, which was at the center of one of the the biggest sexual-assault scandals in recent college football history. Her resignation is effective Jan. 2, the Waco Tribune-Herald reported, although as of this afternoon she already had been removed from the website for Baylor’s Title IX office. Then-Title IX coordinator Patty Crawford left the office in October of last year, saying it had been impossible to do her job in an environment where, at one point, she was asked to give immunity to football players. This past January, another Title IX officer left, Gabrielle Lyons, and she too said university leaders continued to put up road blocks against her investigations of possible rape. Baylor did not say in its statement why Tucker was leaving. It said the following, as obtained via KXXV-TV. During her time at Baylor, Ms. Tucker worked with a team of professionals and attorneys to implement many changes to Baylor’s Title IX processes and policies on behalf of students. The University is grateful for her technical expertise, her support of ongoing strategic initiatives and overall service to Baylor and other campus partners. A lawyer with Cozen O’Connor, Maureen Holland, will fill in as interim Title IX coordinator until Baylor finds a replacement, the Tribune-Herald reported. Cozen O’Connor is the firm that hired away the original lawyers who investigated Baylor, Gina Maisto Smith and Leslie Gomez, from their previous firm, Pepper Hamilton. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Dec 9 2017, 03:18 PM Post #3 |
|
https://academicwonderland.com/2017/12/08/pomona-the-courts-basic-fairness/ Pomona, the Courts, & Basic Fairness December 8, 2017 KC Johnson As more and more schools (currently 72 since the Dear Colleague letter, and counting) have found themselves on the losing end of due process decisions, a handful of institutions have resisted in a troubling manner. Rather than acknowledge that court decisions showed the need to reform their unfair procedures, schools instead have maneuvered to neuter an accused student’s efforts to go to court. The trend started a few months ago at Penn State. After a temporary restraining order blocked the university from suspending a student, the university abruptly announced (without informing the court) that it was withdrawing the student’s guilty finding—but would re-try him, subject to eliminating some (but not all) of the procedural defects in the investigation identified by the court. The accused student’s lawyer filed a contempt motion; the day before the hearing on the motion, Penn State withdrew plans for a new disciplinary hearing for the student. Then came Texas, where the university president overturned a not guilty finding after the accuser—whose father was a major donor to the school—had filed an appeal. The accused student sued; the judge in the case scheduled a hearing, at which the president was scheduled to testify. Less than a week before the hearing, Texas announced that the president had cancelled his guilty finding, and would submit the accuser’s appeal to another, unnamed Texas administrator. But the court called the university’s bluff, and refused to cancel the hearing. That morning, just before the president was to take the stand, the two sides settled, and the university permanently withdrew the guilty finding. A common theme to these two cases: Penn State or Texas procedures did not allow a new hearing after the university had adjudicated the case and dismissed an internal appeal. In short, both schools were trying to invent new procedures on the fly to remove procedurally flawed decisions from a court’s jurisdiction. At least Penn State and Texas had the good sense to ultimately back down. Not so, at least as of now, Pomona College in California. The basics of the Pomona case were depressingly familiar. (You can read the complaint here.) Two students met in spring 2015, and flirted; both had been drinking. (The accuser also had smoked some marijuana.) The two students went back to the accused student’s dorm room. As the two students became more intimate, the accuser later would say that she had not desired to go forward. She was experiencing, she later claimed, a PTSD-related reaction caused by other alleged sexual assaults she had experienced. Nonetheless, this claimed issue was never communicated to the accused student. So the two students (according to the college investigator’s summary of an interview with the accuser) “ended up in his bed, but she was unsure of how they got there.” The accuser further admitted voluntarily kissing the accused student (who I’ll call JD), while both were shirtless, in his bed. At that point, the two stories diverged. The accuser claimed that the additional sexual contact was without consent; JD claimed that the accuser consented unequivocally by physically moving his hand down to her vagina. Both sides agreed that to the extent the accuser was experiencing mental turmoil from PTSD, she never communicated that to JD, and JD (who was a college student, not a trained mental health professional) was unaware of it. The accuser filed a Title IX complaint with Pomona nine months after the incident. (She appears never to have gone to the police.) Under Pomona’s policies, the Title IX coordinator hired an investigator who interviewed the two parties and some witnesses, and produced a report. That document then went to an adjudicator hired by Pomona, who presided over what Pomona procedures call a “hearing.” The accused student was allowed to present questions—five days before the hearing—that the hired adjudicator might (or might not) ask of the accuser. In JD’s case, the investigator, Li Fellers, spoke to him, his roommate, the accuser, and a couple of the accuser’s friends who said that she told them about her discomfort with the incident shortly after it occurred. The accused student seemed to have strong evidence. JD passed a lie detector test (which Pomona later would refuse to consider). On the critical issue at play in the case, whether she had denied consent to sexual touching, the accuser gave fundamentally inconsistent statements—claiming in one discussion with the investigator that she had frozen during the encounter and had said nothing to JD, claiming in another that she had clearly said no. Moreover, Fellers’ own investigation raised questions about the accuser’s credibility. The accuser alleged that JD had stalked her, claiming that at two social events on campus, JD—around 15 feet away from her at one occasion, around 20 feet away from her on another—sought to intimidate her. But the accuser, by her own admission, couldn’t identify someone from beyond 10 feet away, due to poor eyesight, and therefore had no idea whether JD was even in the room. Fellers further reported that a “majority” of the accuser’s own witnesses had “contradicted her accounts” of the harassment claim. Nonetheless, this concrete demonstration of the accuser’s dubious credibility did not prevent Fellers from producing a report suggesting she had believed the accuser’s claim about sexual assault. During the subsequent Pomona hearing, Fellers admitted that around half of her business came from Title IX investigations—suggesting a strong incentive to stay on the good side of the Title IX coordinators who hire her. Before the hearing commenced, JD’s lawyer (who wasn’t allowed to represent him at the hearing himself) asked for copies of the witness statements to Fellers—only to discover that Pomona policy doesn’t have investigators retain this information. (It was “typically standard that we don’t record” witness interviews, Fellers would later tell the Pomona hearing. “Clients [the universities] don’t want us to record.” It’s not hard to imagine why.) Instead, Pomona turned over Fellers’ interview notes—but with dozens of redactions, even though Pomona policy provided no grounds for withholding this type of material. Fellers later said that the redactions came from the college counsel’s office. The hearing was a farce—neither the accuser nor her witnesses appeared. In a passage that recalled the hearing in the 6th Circuit’s University of Cincinnati case, the adjudicator, Joseph Costa, noted that procedures existed for some indirect questioning of the accuser, but an absent witness could answer no questions. “If she was here,” said he, “you know, it would be a different story.” Costa added, “One of the big issues for me in this matter is . . . there’s a lot of factual disputes, and a lot of what is here goes to certain factual disputes.” Yet because the accuser chose not to appear for the hearing, Costa never was able to explore concerns he had with her side of the story. Instead, he heard from a dean to whom the accuser had given her initial allegation—and denied multiple questions JD wanted asked, including questions about the accuser’s medical history, which seemed relevant to the case given her unverified claim of PTSD. In the end, Costa largely accepted the presentation from Fellers’ report, and, absent cross-examination of the accuser (but after a hearing in which he did question JD at length), Costa found JD guilty. He so concluded despite finding that JD “was earnest in his statements at the hearing that he believed he had consent.” When Pomona denied the appeal, the college’s process was over. So JD went to state court. That the case was assigned to Judge Mary Strobel seemed ominous—Strobel authored a troubling summer 2017 opinion upholding the infamous Occidental guilty finding. (That was the case where the accuser texted a friend—before going to the accused student’s dorm room—saying she was going to have sex, but Occidental found him guilty anyway.) But the Pomona procedures were too much even for Judge Strobel, who noted that the lack of any opportunity for cross-examination raised “serious fairness questions,” and was so “prejudicial” to JD that the college denied him a “fair hearing.” She set aside Pomona’s guilty finding. You can read her opinion here. Pomona, of course, has the right to appeal an adverse ruling. Instead, in mid-November Title IX coordinator Sue McCarthy informed JD that Pomona was going to re-try him, using a different adjudicator but the exact same evidence (including the Fellers report) from the original case, and under the same procedures that had produced the decision Judge Strobel set aside. The university did not inform Judge Strobel of this rather startling decision, which appears to violate existing Pomona procedures. Even more remarkably, McCarthy provided no indication that this second “hearing” (which, again, has no authorization under the college’s policies) would include cross-examination of the accuser, the defect identified in Judge Strobel’s ruling. Indeed, McCarthy placed an extra burden on JD, demanding that he produce a 20-page report responding to Fellers’ original investigative report, including questions for the accuser if she decided to show up for this new hearing. It’s not hard to see what Pomona is doing here. Just as Penn State and Texas attempted, the message: wrongly accused students can sue, and might even win in court—but the victory will be meaningless, because the school will simply re-do the process, without altered procedures. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |







9:18 AM Jul 11