Whats this stuff regarding Trev?

[Speedlimit]

And now somehow a school policy is the same as federal law.

I would be shocked if Title IX holds that consensual relationships between two adults (a faculty member and a student) are per se illegal because they equal sexual harassment.

In my post-undergrad work, I had a professor that married a TA of his (she was WAY younger, easily within the timeframe of Title IX). He was still teaching (and still hiring only young women TA's...). If what he did was illegal, how was he still teaching? I'm even willing to bet that if I looked, he violated school policy on dating/sleeping with.

I hope UNL is compliant with Title IX...the BofR's written policy seems to mimic Title IX requirements, including the prohibition of consensual relationships between faculty and students

I guess this litigation will illuminate whether or not UNL followed its Title IX policies.

 

[Yoda]

And now somehow a school policy is the same as federal law.

I would be shocked if Title IX holds that consensual relationships between two adults (a faculty member and a student) are per se illegal because they equal sexual harassment.

In my post-undergrad work, I had a professor that married a TA of his (she was WAY younger, easily within the timeframe of Title IX). He was still teaching (and still hiring only young women TA's...). If what he did was illegal, how was he still teaching? I'm even willing to bet that if I looked, he violated school policy on dating/sleeping with.

Neither Title IX or the university's Title IX policy implementation establish that consensual relationships between professor/coach and student are per se illegal/discriminatory or anything else. Title IX includes and the U's policy include the word "unwelcome" when describing "sexual harassment" under the Title IX policy.

Title IX broadly prohibits discriminatory acts by entities that accept federal educational funding, and requires those entities to adopt certain policies and procedures in furtherance of that. Nowhere does Title IX deem or otherwise define consensual relationships in this context to be illegal without more, and nowhere does it impose liability on the entities without more.

 

[Yoda]

I hope UNL is compliant with Title IX...the BofR's written policy seems to mimic Title IX requirements, including the prohibition of consensual relationships between faculty and students

I guess this litigation will illuminate whether or not UNL followed its Title IX policies.

Really...can you point out where in Title IX it refers to university seals? Insurance requirements for automobiles? Retirement? You really shouldn't confuse employment and conditions of employment policies with Title IX policies. They ain't the same, and just because thay appear in one policy handbook, does not mean they are the result of Title IX.

 

[Speedlimit]

As defined by Title IX and the university's policies related to Title IX enforcement, "Sexual harassment" means conduct on the basis of sex that includes unwelcome conduct. Title IX does not per se prohibit consensual conduct between student and professor. Courts have interpreted them to violate Title IX where the conduct is unwelcome, and where in the case of entity, the entity has failed to adequately respond to a Title IX complaint.

In the college setting, I cannot locate any case that holds that a consensual relationship between professor and student alone violates Title IX. Perhaps you can provide a cite?

UNL policy RP 3.3.15 is unrelated and not required by Title IX. Nowhere in that policy is Title IX referred to. It is contained in the total policies if the university system and is a condition of employment, existing in the same section that describes things like vacations, which are totally unrelated to Title IX. Additionally, within that very policy related to conditions of employment, it makes room for consensual relationships between professors and students.

OK, if you say so. All these universities have prohibitions on consensual relationships between students and teachers just because and it's not related Title IX and sexual harassment.

I hope UNL is not using a similar legal analysis.

 

[cthusker]

Still waiting for video to surface with a group of attorneys beating the hell out of one person and killing them....I have seen videos with LE engaging in this behavior, but I am sure at some point video will surface showing the mean and bad attorneys ganging up on someone and killing them or seriously injuring them.

If you’re ever mugged, robbed, shot, assaulted, etc be sure to call your attorney first and let me know how that works out for you.

 

[Yoda]

OK, if you say so. All these universities have prohibitions on consensual relationships between students and teachers just because and it's not related Title IX and sexual harassment.

I hope UNL is not using a similar legal analysis.

Well, if a person were to really think this through, they'd understand that the federal government is prohibited form making consensual relationships between adults with capacity to make such decisions illegal. There's a few cases on the subject. Thus, the feds, through whatever title, cannot simply declare that consensual relationships between professor and student are per se illegal. What they can do is impose requirements on schools that schools have to do something in the event that an "unwelcome" relationship occurs. There';s a reason the word "unwelcome" is used. It's actually in the regulations and the policy.

Conditions of employment existing outside the confines of Title IX are different animals all together, and while perhaps influenced by it, are not required by it. The University's conditions of employment policies would actually conflict with the requirements of Title IX if your view was accurate...what with them allowing consensual relationships between student and professor in some circumstances.

Have you found any cites yet?

 

[Speedlimit]

If you’re ever mugged, robbed, shot, assaulted, etc be sure to call your attorney first and let me know how that works out for you.

Technically I have been shot, stabbed and beaten....and did not involve the police in any of those incidents.

All the people I know in LE are decent people...does not mean there are not bad cops...just like there are crooked attorneys. Every profession has its s-birds.

 

[NU_Alum]

Neither Title IX or the university's Title IX policy implementation establish that consensual relationships between professor/coach and student are per se illegal/discriminatory or anything else. Title IX includes and the U's policy include the word "unwelcome" when describing "sexual harassment" under the Title IX policy.

Title IX broadly prohibits discriminatory acts by entities that accept federal educational funding, and requires those entities to adopt certain policies and procedures in furtherance of that. Nowhere does Title IX deem or otherwise define consensual relationships in this context to be illegal without more, and nowhere does it impose liability on the entities without more.

I quickly skimmed the policy because it's irrelevant here. The employer could absolutely have a policy making it a firable offense if one dates/sleeps with a student of theirs. As we both know, , that has nothing to do with Title IX at all.

I see he's wondering why schools have policies on it if it's not illegal. That's a silly analysis and really shows a complete lack of understanding on many levels.

 

[Speedlimit]

Well, if a person were to really think this through, they'd understand that the federal government is prohibited form making consensual relationships between adults with capacity to make such decisions illegal. There's a few cases on the subject. Thus, the feds, through whatever title, cannot simply declare that consensual relationships between professor and student are per se illegal. What they can do is impose requirements on schools that schools have to do something in the event that an "unwelcome" relationship occurs. There';s a reason the word "unwelcome" is used. It's actually in the regulations and the policy.

Conditions of employment existing outside the confines of Title IX are different animals all together, and while perhaps influenced by it, are not required by it. The University's conditions of employment policies would actually conflict with the requirements of Title IX if your view was accurate...what with them allowing consensual relationships between student and professor in some circumstances.

Have you found any cites yet?

You willing to pay my billable rate...$420 per hour?

Otherwise, I am not doing research for you. I am talking to a brick wall if you do not understand that universities prohibit consensual relationships between students and faculty to avoid hostile environments/sexual harrassment claims under Title IX.

Some liberal schools like Stanford have a process to go through to engage in a consensual relationship, but it usually requires recusal, if it is allowed, and there is an entire open process that occurs.

I am not sure if UNL has a similar policy or if it was followed in the Love case.

What I do know is that most policies prohibit consensual relationships so as to avoid Title IX issues.

 

[Yoda]

You willing to pay my billable rate...$420 per hour?

Otherwise, I am not doing research for you. I am talking to a brick wall if you do not understand that universities prohibit consensual relationships between students and faculty to avoid hostile environments/sexual harrassment claims under Title IX.

Some liberal schools like Stanford have a process to go through to engage in a consensual relationship, but it usually requires recusal, if it is allowed, and there is an entire open process that occurs.

I am not sure if UNL has a similar policy or if it was followed in the Love case.

What I do know is that most policies prohibit consensual relationships so as to avoid Title IX issues.

Well...I suppose a person gets what they pay for. Not sure advising clients to immediately settle, especially without knowing all the information available is a good strategy. I guess that's what $420 an hour buys...impressive.

And now, we are again sailing in the wind...no one, including myself, said that employment policies are not adopted to limit sexual discrimination complaints. Indeed, my very statement that you quoted, suggests that Title IX can certainly influence employment policies. That is not synonymous with saying they are required by it tho. That's what $420 an hour gets I guess...problems without comprehension.

But hey...you appear to be coming around to recognizing that schools can adopt policies in an attempt to avoid Title IX issues, even though Title IX doesn't require the policy itself. No idea why it took so long.

Are you sticking with the whole strict liability thing?

Not willing to provide the citations? I wonder why? Doubt it has anything to do with your time.

 

[Yoda]

I quickly skimmed the policy because it's irrelevant here. The employer could absolutely have a policy making it a firable offense if one dates/sleeps with a student of theirs. As we both know, , that has nothing to do with Title IX at all.

I see he's wondering why schools have policies on it if it's not illegal. That's a silly analysis and really shows a complete lack of understanding on many levels.

There's been a lot of blanket statements made that ultimately cannot be supported, and when called on it...well you know how that goes. It's what $420 an hour buys I guess.

 

[NU_Alum]

You willing to pay my billable rate...$420 per hour?

Otherwise, I am not doing research for you. I am talking to a brick wall if you do not understand that universities prohibit consensual relationships between students and faculty to avoid hostile environments/sexual harrassment claims under Title IX.

Some liberal schools like Stanford have a process to go through to engage in a consensual relationship, but it usually requires recusal, if it is allowed, and there is an entire open process that occurs.

I am not sure if UNL has a similar policy or if it was followed in the Love case.

What I do know is that most policies prohibit consensual relationships so as to avoid Title IX issues.

I blew past the "I'm a trial lawyer" comment earlier because I know you wanted to sound impressive and knowledgeable on this topic. But this? $420/hour is your flex? At least exaggerate it so it sounds impressive.

Regardless, you've gone from "this is strict liability" to schools all do it differently and it's entirely possible to actually have a relationship that I just said was illegal (and SL on top of that).

Do you see the issues in your argument, counselor?

 

[Speedlimit]

Well...I suppose a person gets what they pay for. Not sure advising clients to immediately settle, especially without knowing all the information available is a good strategy. I guess that's what $420 an hour buys...impressive.

And now, we are again sailing in the wind...no one, including myself, said that employment policies are not adopted to limit sexual discrimination complaints. Indeed, my very statement that you quoted, suggests that Title IX can certainly influence employment policies. That is not synonymous with saying they are required by it tho. That's what $420 an hour gets I guess...problems without comprehension.

But hey...you appear to be coming around to recognizing that schools can adopt policies in an attempt to avoid Title IX issues, even though Title IX doesn't require the policy itself. No idea why it took so long.

Are you sticking with the whole strict liability thing?

Not willing to provide the citations? I wonder why? Doubt it has anything to do with your time.

I am not repping UNL...just a concerned alumni who does not want this thing to get any uglier than it is.

Stricy liability is something that has to be proven up at trial and yes it can and does apply if the factors are proven as laid out above. Will it apply in the Love case, who knows, because we do not know much about the case or what it will look like after discovery.

Attack me all you want, but I have had a very fortunate career. I have worked and trained with some of the best trial lawyers in the country...including the one who helped saved this website from a hostile corporate takeover many moons ago.

 

[Speedlimit]

I blew past the "I'm a trial lawyer" comment earlier because I know you wanted to sound impressive and knowledgeable on this topic. But this? $420/hour is your flex? At least exaggerate it so it sounds impressive.

Regardless, you've gone from "this is strict liability" to schools all do it differently and it's entirely possible to actually have a relationship that I just said was illegal (and SL on top of that).

Do you see the issues in your argument, counselor?

No.

As I pointed out, prohibitions on consensual relationships are part of an institution's Title IX compliance policy. Under certain circumstances, schools can face stirct liability.

Good trial lawyers do not exaggerate stuff and just let facts speak for themselves. Most farm kids like me would never dream that I could make even $100 an hour, so life is treating me pretty good in my mind.

 

[Yoda]

I am not repping UNL...just a concerned alumni who does not want this thing to get any uglier than it is.

Stricy liability is something that has to be proven up at trial and yes it can and does apply if the factors are proven as laid out above. Will it apply in the Love case, who knows, because we do not know much about the case or what it will look like after discovery.

Attack me all you want, but I have had a very fortunate career. I have worked and trained with some of the best trial lawyers in the country...including the one who helped saved this website from a hostile corporate takeover many moons ago.

You can work and train with Joe Montana, Tom Brady, Patrick Mahomes and whoever else...that doesn't make you Joe Montana, Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes...or Maren Chaploupka.

"Strict liability" imposes liability on a 'defendant' because of the act itself, regardless of any mental state, knowledge or intent. This is basic 1L stuff. By definition, liability for Title IX violations at the outset require knowledge of a potential issue and indifference to the knowledge thereafter. These are absolutely mental states, and strict liability is irrelevant to Title IX or § 1983 claims.

There are no factors that implicate strict liability in this case. None. And I'm not attacking you when I say that if you're charging $420 an hour for this type of analysis, well...I feel for your clients.