If some of you can get by the fact it is written by a man and in an unabashedly conservative magazine, there is an interesting point here.
Nice idea but not every victim can afford lawyers and everything else that goes into a civil case.
The author overlooks the fact that the alleged butt-grabber was summarily fired based on the accusation alone. The litigation came afterwards. The problem is that employers can summarily fire people, and schools usually don’t (and shouldn’t) summarily expel students.
I thought the author’s argument was victims could sue in civil court for damages and college disciplinary proceedings could be based on the results of those trials or settlements.
The civil court docket is very full in some jurisdictions, and cases can take a long time to be resolved. What happens while a case is slogging its way through the court system? Are the college disciplinary proceedings at a standstill? Is the accused allowed to continue in school?
Swift was not the one who sued here. She was initially satisfied with her mother’s report of the incident to his employer.
After the termination Mueller sued Swift, her mother and I believe the person who fired him. Swift counterclaimed against him only after he sued her for damages for his termination. The judge just dismissed her as a defendant, but I believe allowed her counterclaim to stand. I think the reasoning was that it was her mother who reported the incident and his employer who fired him. Although I haven’t seen the decision I assume the judge felt Mueller had no cause of action against Swift.
Most civil cases are taken on a contingency basis by the plaintiff’s attorney. In the US, each party pays its own costs and if you lose as a plaintiff, you don’t owe your attorney anything. It’s the defendants who have to pay for attorneys, although in many civil cases, a defendant’s attorney fees and costs are paid by their insurance company.
Not completely free. There are fees which may not be covered under contingency and there’s the substantial costs in the form of substantial time expended in preparing for and waging a civil suit case…or even waiting for it to be tried which could result in lost opportunity costs, wages, and mental stress of having to undergo what can be an ordeal for many.
Those factors are often used by the opposing side…especially those with substantial wealth/leverage to encourage a settlement which reduces their losses and often includes a clause not admitting any guilt for wrongdoing.
How would one calculate damages on sexual harassment or sexual assault from the alleged victim’s perspective? And it would not then be a Title IX claim either.
^That’s not a new issue. Courts have been awarding damages in sexual assault claims for a long time. One issue is many states have caps on non-economic compensatory damages, which sometimes apply in sexual assault cases.
I have seen employment cases under Title VII stemming from workplace sexual harassment. There might also be cases where a victim sues for damages due to emotional distress or physical injury after the perpetrator has already been convicted in criminal court.
A campus Title IX case from the victim’s perspective is based upon them being deprived of the opportunity to get an education. Their remedy is having that impediment removed or alleviated so they can have the educational opportunity.
Can you point me to some cases? Maybe they exist, I am just not familiar with them. Remember we are talking about Title IX campus assault cases here.
^I think the author in the link was proposing an alternative framework to Title IX, so new legislation that would effectively outsource the job of the Title IX panels to civil courts.
But that would not change an alleged victim’s right to proceed with a Title IX hearing at the university level. Universities have an interest in adjudicating these cases – the responsibility of campus safety and enforcement of their conduct code lies with them.
ETA: I think the author is confused. Swift didn’t originate the litigation.
This thread seems as good as any to raise the issue of Ezekiel Elliot. His girlfriend accused him of physical abuse. I believe she reported it to the police but they declined to prosecute basically stating there were “conflicting” narratives.
The NFL conducted their own investigation pursuant to the NFL’s Conduct Code. Yesterday they suspended him. From what I can tell the decision was reached with no input from him whatsoever. He did not even get a hearing --only gets one if he wants to appeal.
Seems to me many entities besides universities adjudicate offenses under their conduct codes. We don’t seem to get the same push back though.
^Ezekiel Elliott was suspended for six games, not even an entire season. Although analogies aren’t exact, a comparable punishment for a college student might be having to withdraw for the rest of the semester and then being allowed to return to school the following semester.
Elliot has a huge amount to lose and the publicity hurts his career. And if you look at the data that is available there are actually very few expulsions resulting from the campus hearings.
Based on the posts over the last few years on this forum, you and others should be jumping up and down about the NFL’s lack of due process in their conduct hearings. I don’t think I have ever seen one thread on the NFL’s adjudication of matters arising under their conduct codes.
The NFL players have a union to protect them, and protect them they do. It was the union that got Ray Lewis his salary (about $3M) for the year he missed. The union is very very strong.
If Elliot didn’t get a hearing, it’s because that’s what’s in the bargaining agreement (and I think he did have an opportunity to respond to documentation and statements before the decision). Tom Brady and the Patriots had meetings with the investigators before the decisions were handed down.
Jerry Jones doesn’t have a union. He has no one representing him. Poor Jerry.
I believe a union rep was among those who accompanied Elliot to his meeting with the disciplinary tribunal. He was still suspended without pay. My understanding is that each side meets with the panel members separately, so there is no actual hearing where questions can be asked of each other or witnesses presented. It’s all done on paper from what I can tell.
But in general it appears the NFL’s disciplinary framework has a very similar structure to what colleges are currently doing. It seems to be less formal where individual meetings with the parties are substituted for hearings.
And the NFL apparently does not give a damn about what the criminal justice system says about these allegations, at least not as far as their own authority to act is concerned. The city attorney of Columbus said his office would not pursue charges against Elliot. He went on to say the prosecutor division’s investigation had determined there “was insufficient evidence to support filing criminal charges” on the allegations by the Ohio woman. The NFL disregarded that finding, came to their own conclusions and suspended him without pay.
So whether you are Elliot signing on with the NFL, James Damore at Google or a university student, codes of conduct are important and those entities are entitled to enforce them. You agree to the provisions of those codes when you sign up. What those codes say and whether they are enforced according to their own terms are things we can still argue about.
^ Are you really trying to draw a comparasion between the NFL disciplinary process and college tribunals? Come on.
Of course he was suspended without pay. He’s being disciplined.
Not too many years ago, the NFL didn’t discipline anyone for anything, a sort of ‘leave it to the law’ policy. If a player could show up for work (i.e., not in jail), he was still on the roster. Ray Carruth murdered someone and he was fired. Ray Lewis did and he wasn’t because he was able to plead out. Aaron Hernandez is still fighting, through the union, for his back pay and pension benefits. The NFL finally realized leaving it to the legal authorities wasn’t working, that the players were getting away with breaking the law all the time and it was hurting the image of the NFL. Any actions taken by the NFL are for the benefit of the NFL, for its image, not for society.
Actions taken by colleges are because the DCL requires them. Students don’t have any group like the players’ union looking out for them.