• You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.

HuskerMax readers can save 50% on  Omaha Steaks .

Whats this stuff regarding Trev?

I’m glad I did keep on reading because I was about to make the same point you just did only not as elegant. Why take the chance of revealing negative information when not forced to do so and potentially exposing your company to legal action? The answer is don’t do it....
It's why almost no one does it. I'm not saying something controversial, there's a reason "employment dates" only is the literal norm from former employers to potential future employers.
 

I’m glad I did keep on reading because I was about to make the same point you just did only not as elegant. Why take the chance of revealing negative information when not forced to do so and potentially exposing your company to legal action? The answer is don’t do it....
And if you have a coach having sex with a student and do nothing but let the person go on to their next job and the coach has sex with a student at the next job that leads to a lawsuit, the first school who did not report the prior misconduct will end up in that lawsuit.

See the pattern here? Again, this is not a supervisor sleeping with a secretary. This is a coach/teacher having sex with a student.

It is pretty basic. Professors and coaches cannot have sexual relationships (consensual or otherwise) with students. When they do, they are certain actions that the school must take against the professor/coach, not the student.

This is what many seem to be missing here. Consentual or not, the law treats students in these situations as victims and the onus is on the schools to protect them. The law does not treat the professor/coach in this situation the same way its treats the student.
 
What side of this would compare to Gage County case? The university or Ashley Scroggins? I would think Scroggins attorney is working on contingency based on any settlement she would receive.
The only similarity in the cases is the lawyer involved.

The cold, hard, truth is that some lawyers are way better than others...and this attorney is pretty darn good!
 



And if you have a coach having sex with a student and do nothing but let the person go on to their next job and the coach has sex with a student at the next job that leads to a lawsuit, the first school who did not report the prior misconduct will end up in that lawsuit.

See the pattern here? Again, this is not a supervisor sleeping with a secretary. This is a coach/teacher having sex with a student.

It is pretty basic. Professors and coaches cannot have sexual relationships (consensual or otherwise) with students. When they do, they are certain actions that the school must take against the professor/coach, not the student.

This is what many seem to be missing here. Consentual or not, the law treats students in these situations as victims and the onus is on the schools to protect them. The law does not treat the professor/coach in this situation the same way its treats the student.
Serious question, what if the student is 29 and the coach is 30? Wouldn't that be different than a high school student and a 30-year-old teacher?

(I couldn't find Chuck Love's age online after searching a couple minutes...) but Scoggin was 23-24 and somewhat of a "non-trad" when this went down. I would think there would be some consideration for the age of the "victim". It's not like she was a naïve 18-year-old freshman.
 
And if you have a coach having sex with a student and do nothing but let the person go on to their next job and the coach has sex with a student at the next job that leads to a lawsuit, the first school who did not report the prior misconduct will end up in that lawsuit.

See the pattern here? Again, this is not a supervisor sleeping with a secretary. This is a coach/teacher having sex with a student.

It is pretty basic. Professors and coaches cannot have sexual relationships (consensual or otherwise) with students. When they do, they are certain actions that the school must take against the professor/coach, not the student.

This is what many seem to be missing here. Consentual or not, the law treats students in these situations as victims and the onus is on the schools to protect them. The law does not treat the professor/coach in this situation the same way its treats the student.
Where is the duty for the first school to tell the second school? Is there a statute on this?

Does Nebraska treat college students differently? You might be right, just curious if that's accurate.
 
And if you have a coach having sex with a student and do nothing but let the person go on to their next job and the coach has sex with a student at the next job that leads to a lawsuit, the first school who did not report the prior misconduct will end up in that lawsuit.

See the pattern here? Again, this is not a supervisor sleeping with a secretary. This is a coach/teacher having sex with a student.

It is pretty basic. Professors and coaches cannot have sexual relationships (consensual or otherwise) with students. When they do, they are certain actions that the school must take against the professor/coach, not the student.

This is what many seem to be missing here. Consentual or not, the law treats students in these situations as victims and the onus is on the schools to protect them. The law does not treat the professor/coach in this situation the same way its treats the student.
Citations to the specific applicable laws?
 
And if you have a coach having sex with a student and do nothing but let the person go on to their next job and the coach has sex with a student at the next job that leads to a lawsuit, the first school who did not report the prior misconduct will end up in that lawsuit.

See the pattern here? Again, this is not a supervisor sleeping with a secretary. This is a coach/teacher having sex with a student.

It is pretty basic. Professors and coaches cannot have sexual relationships (consensual or otherwise) with students. When they do, they are certain actions that the school must take against the professor/coach, not the student.

This is what many seem to be missing here. Consentual or not, the law treats students in these situations as victims and the onus is on the schools to protect them. The law does not treat the professor/coach in this situation the same way its treats the student.
What specific actions must the schools take?
 




He didn't get "canned". He resigned after a 3-month suspension with pay. He's now employed elsewhere as a coach.

https://www.espn.com/womens-college...sketball-coach-resigns-three-month-suspension

Did the school he is working for now know he was the subject of Title IX investigation while at Nebraska for having sex with a player he directly coached?

If not, then yes what Nebraska did or did not do could be relevant.

Um…what school is he working for now? Isn’t he self-employed as some sort of private coach/consultant operating under the name: “Love In Basketball”?
 
Serious question, what if the student is 29 and the coach is 30? Wouldn't that be different than a high school student and a 30-year-old teacher?

(I couldn't find Chuck Love's age online after searching a couple minutes...) but Scoggin was 23-24 and somewhat of a "non-trad" when this went down. I would think there would be some consideration for the age of the "victim". It's not like she was a naïve 18-year-old freshman.
Or if the student is older than the teacher . . . . .
 
Serious question, what if the student is 29 and the coach is 30? Wouldn't that be different than a high school student and a 30-year-old teacher?

(I couldn't find Chuck Love's age online after searching a couple minutes...) but Scoggin was 23-24 and somewhat of a "non-trad" when this went down. I would think there would be some consideration for the age of the "victim". It's not like she was a naïve 18-year-old freshman.
This is not a statutory assault situation, so age makes no difference.

This is a position of authority situation, so the student could actually be older than the coach/professor and the analysis would still be the same.
 
What specific actions must the schools take?
Title IX protects students by prohibiting sexual harassment and sexual violence in educational institutions by requiring schools to implement strategies to safeguard students from such behavior perpetrated by school personnel or peers and requiring schools to effectively address such misconduct when it occurs on campus or in connection with any educational or extracurricular program. Sexual harassment may be “quid pro quo” – where pressure is exerted on the victim to engage in a sexual relationship through explicit or implied threats of negative consequences for refusal – or “hostile environment” – where unwelcome words or actions of a sexual nature are inflicted on the victim in a severe or pervasive manner resulting in the creation of a hostile educational environment.

Based on U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Gebser v. Lago Vista I.S.D. (1998) and Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999), schools and personnel in the hierarchy of vicarious liability will be held strictly liable (automatically responsible) for sexual harassment against a student when someone in a position to take remedial action has knowledge that the harassment is occurring and exhibits deliberate indifference to correcting the situation.

Knowledge plus deliberate indifference.

These two criteria for the imposition of automatic liability on schools and personnel reinforce the need for educational institutions to enact substantive sexual harassment policies, reporting mechanisms, investigatory procedures and dispute resolution processes that will adequately protect students and shield against legal exposure.

These are just some of the specific actions schools must take.
 



Here is a recent updated Q&A on what education institutions have to do regarding Title IX and sexual harrassment issues involving students...if you are looking for some light legal reading:


Are you could go read Title IX and all the federal regulations associated with it if you have a couple of weeks or months to spare.
And that’s exactly what’s wrong in the way lawyers write regulations and laws imo. Hundreds of pages of undecipherable minutia that requires lawyers to unravel which isn’t an accident. To be honest I’m generally on the other side of those twisted laws and dealing with slick defense lawyers. I work in law enforcement and my opinion of many lawyers isn't what I’d call postive. Unfortunately lawyers are a necessary evil imo because of the horrible complexity in the way laws are written by them. Bottom line sounds like employers are damned if they do and also damned if they don’t provide negative information. I’d personally rather get sued for NOT providing damaging information to a perspective employer then sued for supplying that information Nothing surprises me when it comes to these complex crazy laws anymore.... :mad: What could possible go wrong with cashless bail? :Lol:
 

Title IX protects students by prohibiting sexual harassment and sexual violence in educational institutions by requiring schools to implement strategies to safeguard students from such behavior perpetrated by school personnel or peers and requiring schools to effectively address such misconduct when it occurs on campus or in connection with any educational or extracurricular program. Sexual harassment may be “quid pro quo” – where pressure is exerted on the victim to engage in a sexual relationship through explicit or implied threats of negative consequences for refusal – or “hostile environment” – where unwelcome words or actions of a sexual nature are inflicted on the victim in a severe or pervasive manner resulting in the creation of a hostile educational environment.

Based on U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Gebser v. Lago Vista I.S.D. (1998) and Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999), schools and personnel in the hierarchy of vicarious liability will be held strictly liable (automatically responsible) for sexual harassment against a student when someone in a position to take remedial action has knowledge that the harassment is occurring and exhibits deliberate indifference to correcting the situation.

Knowledge plus deliberate indifference.

These two criteria for the imposition of automatic liability on schools and personnel reinforce the need for educational institutions to enact substantive sexual harassment policies, reporting mechanisms, investigatory procedures and dispute resolution processes that will adequately protect students and shield against legal exposure.

These are just some of the specific actions schools must take.
You missed a really important piece...when the knowledge or report is received. Based on the publicly available information, the university did not have any knowledge that a Title IX investigation was warranted until the incident in the hotel occurred. None of that has anything to do with disclosing information to an subsequent employer, and what is and is not required and/or prohibited.

In this case, what was the specific action required? Further, what was the specific action required with regard to any subsequent employer, which appears to be a a situation of self-employment?

There is no "law" that criminalizes consensual relationships between student and professor/coach. Title IX is a series of policies that schools are required to adopt, and crazily enough, a policy prohibiting sexual relations between a student and professor/coach are not explicitly required by Title IX.
 

GET TICKETS


Get 50% off on Omaha Steaks

Back
Top