IN THIS ISSUE
|
COMING IN THE SPRING 2000 ISSUE
Feature
Article: Participation Rights Of Students With Disabilities -
The Americans With Disabilities Act & Related Legislation Applied To Athletics
Programs
Sports In The Courts: Summaries Of Recent Cases In Professional, Collegiate & Scholastic
Athletics
In Brief - Sports Law In The
News: Summaries Of Recent Sports Law Issues Reported In The
Media
|
Sports Law Academy
is a FREE quarterly online newsletter which reports the latest legal developments
affecting athletics administrators, coaches, officials, physical education instructors,
athletics trainers, club sport sponsors, intramural and recreational sports supervisors,
cheerleading sponsors, and other athletics personnel. Sports Law Academy
is designed to be downloaded, copied, and distributed to your institution's athletics
personnel for use as a continuing education tool. Topics will include liability for sports
injuries and risk management, constitutional and civil rights of student-athletes, Title
IX compliance, sexual harassment in athletics programs, athletics participation rights of
student-athletes with disabilities, sports employment law issues, sports event management
law, and a variety of other legal issues affecting the operation of professional,
collegiate, and scholastic athletics programs.
If you have
an inquiry regarding Sports Law Academy, a suggestion for a topic we
might cover in a future issue, or a court case or news item to submit for publication,
please contact us at:
Sports Law Publishing P.O. Box 888 Baldwin, Kansas
66006
Or Call Toll Free: 888/791-2542 Or
Fax: 888/749-5238
Or E-Mail: lawprof@sportslawpublishing.com |
SPORTS IN THE COURTS
SUMMARIES OF RECENT COURT CASES AFFECTING
PROFESSIONAL, COLLEGIATE & SCHOLASTIC ATHLETICS
TITLE IX & SPORTS GOVERNING
BODIES
R.M. Smith v. NCAA 119 S.Ct. 924 (1999)
In
February 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the NCAA is not subject to the
requirements of Title IX. The complainant, Renee Smith, sued the NCAA under Title IX
alleging gender discrimination in the Association's enforcement of a bylaw prohibiting
students from participating in athletics while enrolled in graduate programs at
institutions other than their undergraduate institutions. Smith had played volleyball for
two seasons at St. Bonaventure and the NCAA denied her waiver request to use her remaining
eligibility during graduate school at a different college.
Title
IX's proscription on sex discrimination applies only to educational institutions,
programs, or activities receiving federal financial assistance and in the Smith
case, the Supreme Court ruled that the receipt of dues from member colleges who are
recipients of federal funds is not sufficient to establish that the NCAA itself is a
recipient of federal financial assistance. The case is important because, increasingly,
lawsuits are being filed against sports governing bodies on the basis that some rule or
regulation promulgated by the governing body violates Title IX. For instance, it has been
argued that NCAA and NAIA scholarship limitations inhibit the ability of member
institutions to comply with Title IX. It has also been argued that some state high school
association rules, such as those providing for non-traditional seasons for certain girls'
sports, inhibit the ability of member schools to comply with Title IX.
The
Smith case may take some of the pressure off of sports governing bodies with regard to
their potential liability for violating Title IX. It is important to note that the Supreme
Court acknowledged that the NCAA might be subject to Title IX under alternative theories
such as the ground that the NCAA receives federal financial assistance through the
National Youth Sports Program which it administers or on the ground that a governing body
which receives delegated authority from a federally funded institution is itself
constructively federally funded. These alternative theories were not argued by Smith in
the case and therefore could not be ruled on by the Supreme Court. However, the Court
remanded the case back to a lower court for further proceedings and these arguments may be
raised in those proceedings or in future cases.
In sum, there are two key reasons that sports governing bodies must
continue to strive to ensure that all promulgated rules, regulations, and procedures are
consistent with the mandates of Title IX and do not inhibit the ability of member
institutions to provide equal opportunity in athletics for all students. The first reason
is that it appears likely that sports governing bodies will eventually be ruled by the
courts to be subject to Title IX based on one of the alternative theories advanced in the Smith
case. The second reason is that it is quite simply the right thing to do.
TITLE
IX & THE "THREE-PRONG TEST"
Boucher v. Syracuse University 164 F.3d 113 (2nd Cir. 1999)
In January
1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in favor of Syracuse
University in a Title IX case that began in 1995 when members of the women's club lacrosse
team and club softball team filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Syracuse was in
violation of Title IX in the areas of participation opportunities, scholarships, and
treatment of female athletes. In 1998, a federal District Court ruled in favor of
Syracuse, holding that Syracuse had satisfied the second prong of the three alternatives
offered by Title IX's three-prong test - "a history and continuing practice of
program expansion" - by adding women's lacrosse and soccer as varsity sports after
the suit was filed.
Compliance
with Title IX's requirement of equivalent athletic participation opportunities for women
requires that a school satisfy any one of the three alternatives presented by the
three-prong test: (1) substantial proportionality; or (2) history and continuing
practice of program expansion; or (3) full and effective accommodation of the
athletic interests and abilities of the school's female enrollment. Although Syracuse
could not demonstrate compliance with prongs (1) or (3), the District Court decided that
the addition of the two women's sports, even though done after the lawsuit was
filed, satisfied prong (2).
The Court
of Appeals, however, never considered this legal issue of whether post-suit actions can
satisfy the prong-two "history and continuing practice of program expansion."
Rather, the Court of Appeals' decision for Syracuse was based on procedural grounds
unrelated to whether Syracuse had actually complied with Title IX. The case was widely
misrepresented in the media as a precedent-setting victory for Syracuse, while in truth
the ruling fails to clarify the parameters of the three-prong test.
The key
lesson to be learned from the Boucher case is the importance for collegiate and
scholastic athletics programs of being aggressively proactive, in advance of a complaint
or litigation, in their efforts to comply with Title IX. As an alternative to the
difficult-to-satisfy "substantial proportionality" option, schools should
conduct a Title IX self assessment to develop strategies for fulfilling either the
"program expansion" option or the "full and effective accommodation"
option. In recent years, there have been increasing numbers of cases like Boucher
where schools could have and yet failed to implement the very same preventative measures
in advance that they were eventually required to implement by a court - the difference
being that by waiting to act until "after the fact", such schools make
enormous investments of time and money in fighting complaints or defending lawsuits -
investments that might have been better allocated to expanding and improving their
athletics programs in the first place.
TITLE
IX & ELIMINATION OF MEN'S PROGRAMS
Harper v. Illinois State University 1999 WL 76149
(C.D. Ill. 1999)
In
February 1999, a federal District Court rejected the claim of members of Illinois State's
men's wrestling and soccer teams that elimination of their programs violated Title IX
because the decision was made on the basis of sex - essentially a claim of Title IX
reverse discrimination. The District Court's decision relied on the extensive body of
Title IX case law precedents, all of which clearly state that the purpose of Title IX is
to redress past discrimination against the historically underrepresented gender in
athletics. The Court also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that elimination of their
program had a disparate impact on minorities and thus constituted illegal race
discrimination under Title VI. The evidence presented showed that elimination of the
programs in question resulted in less than a one-percent drop in overall minority
participation.
Although
the District Court's decision in favor of Illinois State supports the proposition that
nothing in the law, technically, prohibits using program elimination as a tool to comply
with Title IX, it is interesting to note that the Court expressly stated that "the
plaintiffs make a good showing that ISU handled this decision very poorly ... but that is
not what is at issue legally in this case." The Court acknowledged that although its
hands were tied legally, it strongly disapproved of such a convoluted approach to pursuing
equitable participation opportunities.
The
lesson to be learned from the Harper case is that, despite the absence of a legal
mandate, there is a strong consensus among athletics administrators and athletics
commentators that schools should always reject what have become two of the common
yet misguided approaches to pursuing Title IX compliance: (1) elimination of men's
programs; and (2) roster management (capping the number of participants in men's sports).
Both of these approaches are counterproductive to the goal of maximizing overall
participation opportunities for all students and both create an unfair and undeserved
backlash against an institution's female student-athletes. Inspired and creative athletics
leadership is the true key to developing workable solutions to the reallocation of
resources necessary for balancing Title IX compliance with athletics opportunity for all.
AMERICANS WITH
DISABILITIES ACT & ATHLETICS
Olinger v. United States Golf Association (U.S. Dt. Ct. Ind. 1999)
On May 17,
1999, in South Bend, Indiana, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Miller ruled against golf
professional Fred Olinger's request to use a motorized golf cart in a U.S. Open qualifier.
Olinger had successfully sued the USGA in 1998 for a temporary injunction and was seeking
in the current suit to have the injunction made permanent. Olinger has a degenerative
disorder in both hips.
On April
20, 1999, Miller ruled that the ADA applies to the USGA's operation of the U.S. Open. That
ruling shifted the burden to the USGA to prove that allowing Olinger to use the cart would
be an unreasonable accommodation and would fundamentally alter the nature of the athletics
activity in question.
In his May
17th ruling, Miller held that the USGA had satisfied its burden of proof and that athletic
competition presents a different issue for application of the ADA than does the workplace.
"The point of an athletic competition, in contrast (to the workplace), is to decide
who, under conditions that are about the same for everyone, can perform an assigned set of
tasks better than any other competitor." Miller ruled that allowing Olinger to use a
cart would fundamentally alter the nature of a USGA golf tournament.
The case
does not affect Casey Martin, who won the right last year to ride a cart on the PGA Tour
in a similar case. Martin's case is presently on appeal before the U.S. Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals and a decision is expected later this year.
The ADA has
increasingly been applied in athletics contexts, including academic eligibility disputes,
high school athletics maximum age limits, medical clearance disputes, maximum seasons or
semester limitations, and transfer/residency requirements. Wildly disparate judicial
decisions across the country have resulted in the ADA becoming one of the more complex
aspects of athletics administration. The Fall 1999 issue of Sports Law Academy
will address in detail the application of the ADA to collegiate and scholastic athletics
programs.
IN BRIEF - SPORTS LAW IN
THE NEWS
SUMMARIES OF RECENT SPORTS LAW ISSUES
REPORTED IN THE NATION'S MEDIA
NFHS TAKES POSITION
ON ANDROSTENEDIONE
In
light of recent publicity about the use of androstenedione by Mark McGwire of the St.
Louis Cardinals, the National Federation of State High School Associations has reiterated
its stance against the use of any drug, medication, or food supplement by high school
athletes solely for performance enhancing purposes, including steroids, andro, and
creatine. "In order to minimize health and safety risks to student-athletes, maintain
ethical standards, and reduce liability risks, school personnel and coaches should never
supply, recommend, or permit the use of any drug, medication, or food supplement solely
for performance enhancing purposes," said Robert F. Kanaby, NFHS Executive Director.
NFHS Press Release - May 27, 1999
SPORTS
OFFICIALS ACQUIRE ASSAULT INSURANCE
The
National Association of Sports Officials, the organization which represents nearly 200,000
sports officials, including those who officiate the majority of NFL, MLB, NBA, NCAA, NAIA,
and high school contests, has started providing assault insurance for its members. As part
of their $72 annual dues, NASO members receive coverage that provides medical coverage up
to $5,000, attorney's fees up to $3,000, and lost wages from contests missed because of
injury. Assaults against sports officials have become an increasing problem and although
little statistical research has been done on the subject, one recent survey of basketball
referees indicated that about 14 percent had been assaulted at least once by a player,
coach, spectator or third party.
Associated
Press Wire Release - May 12, 1999
DISABLED
COACH RECEIVES EQUAL TREATMENT
A
paraplegic high school baseball coach who uses a wheelchair can finish the season without
restrictions that prevented him from approaching the mound during pitching changes, as
non-disabled coaches were already allowed to do. The California Interscholastic Federation
and the Orange County Baseball Officials Association agreed that Victor Barrios of
Westminster High School in Los Angeles should have the same coaching rights as those who
don't use a wheelchair. The restriction was, supposedly, for safety reasons although no
explanation was given as to the precise nature of the hazard involved in the coach being
on the field during a changeover.
New York Times - April 24, 1999
REDSKINS
LOSE TRADEMARK PROTECTIONS
In
a decision that gave near-total victory to a group of Native Americans who filed a
complaint in 1992, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ruled
Friday that the Washington Redskins have no right to trademark their nickname because it
is violates the federal trademark statute's proscription on disparaging, scandalous, or
contemptuous marks. The panel ordered the cancellation of federal registrations for seven
Redskins trademarks, including the team's name and the helmet logo showing an Indian's
head in profile. The ruling does not prevent the team from continuing to use the marks,
but it could jeopardize the revenue stream from licensed apparel and merchandise.
According to the Redskins' attorney, the team has no plans to change any of the marks and
will appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Washington Post - April 7, 1999
COACH
FORCES PLAYERS TO WEAR PANTIES
After
complaints by parents, a high school basketball coach in Pardeeville, Wisconsin, has
discontinued his motivational technique of forcing players who lost certain contests
during practice to wear women's undies. For instance, during a rebounding drill, the last
player to capture a rebound had to wear panties. Players were also threatened with having
to wear a brassiere as an extra penalty once he had to wear the panties three times.
"The drill was not something that was intended to be offensive, humiliating, or
derogatory," said coach Mike Weinstock. "It was used to teach rebounding and to
put some fun into practice."
Chicago Tribune - March 4, 1999
FOR MORE INFORMATION ON SPORTS
LAW ISSUES
AFFECTING PROFESSIONAL, COLLEGIATE & SCHOLASTIC
ATHLETICS PROGRAMS, CHECK OUT OUR WEBSITE AT:
WWW.SPORTSLAWPUBLISHING.COM
Sports
Law Publishing Home Page
Covering All The Bases / A Level
Playing Field
Sexual Harassment In Schools & Athletics Programs
Sports Law Academy Online / Ordering
Information
Sports Law Consulting Services / Sports
Law Links
If You Have Inquiries Regarding
This Website
Or Any Of Sports Law Publishing's Products Or Services,
Please Call Toll Free 888/791-2542
|
|
To Search For Other Books On Sports Law:
SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN ATHLETICS
TEN RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PREVENTING SEXUAL HARASSMENT
CLAIMS & LAWSUITS AGAINST SCHOOLS & ATHLETICS PERSONNEL
The male coach of a high school girls' basketball team repeatedly
initiates sexual intercourse with a fifteen-year-old team member, often during the school
day and on school grounds. The coach of another girls' hoops team consistently engages
team members in conversations regarding their boyfriends and their sex lives. The coach of
yet another team often comments on the appearance of his players, discussing both their
manner of dress and their physical attributes. Another coach consistently touches his
players during practice, grabbing them by the arm or around the waist in order to correct
their position on the court. And another coach often hugs his players, either as they come
off the court at the end of a game or in post-game, locker room celebrations.
Sexual harassment? Each of these five factual scenarios has been the
subject of an actual sexual harassment lawsuit by a student-athlete against her coach and
school. And while each case involved a complex set of circumstances too lengthy to detail
here, a jury verdict or settlement resulted in favor of the plaintiff in all five cases.
And in all five cases, the coach in question was dismissed from both his coaching and
teaching positions.
SEXUAL
HARASSMENT LEGAL STANDARDS
In recent years, there has been a dramatic increase in litigation
involving allegations of sexual harassment by athletics personnel against
student-athletes. The legal basis for sexual harassment lawsuits against schools and
school personnel is usually a combination of the federal Title VII prohibition of gender
discrimination in the workplace, state law equivalents of Title VII, the federal Title IX
statute's prohibition of gender discrimination by institutions receiving federal financial
assistance, a variety of state tort law causes of action, and extensive guidelines which
have been established by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Office
For Civil Rights (OCR).
In
short, these sources of law, together with a rapidly expanding body of case law
precedents, define illegal sexual harassment as unwelcome words or actions of a sexual
nature which result in harm to the victim. These three key elements - "unwelcomeness",
"words or actions of a sexual nature", and "harm",
thus form the basis of actionable sexual harassment. In recent years, courts have analyzed
the issue of harm by considering whether the plaintiff was subjected to quid pro quo
harassment (demands of sexual favors in exchange for some identifiable benefit or by
threat of some identifiable detriment) or hostile environment harassment (severe
and pervasive enough to alter the conditions of employment or participation).
In an attempt to bring a greater degree of clarity to the very difficult
issues in sexual harassment cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has heard arguments on five
sexual harassment cases in the 1997-98 and 1998-99 terms. Two of those cases - Burlington
Industries v. Ellerth and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton -
established a standard of employer strict liability for the sexual harassment of an
employee which results in a tangible job detriment for the employee. A third case - Oncale
v. Sundowner Offshore Services - established that same-sex harassment may be
actionable as sexual harassment.
The fourth case - Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District
- established the standard that a school district will not be vicariously liable for
teacher-student harassment unless a school official with the authority to institute
corrective measures had actual notice of and was deliberately indifferent to the
misconduct. Although this controversial, 5-4 decision by the Court to some extent
insulates a school district against liability under Title IX, the case does not affect any
right of recovery that a plaintiff may have against a school under state law nor any right
of recovery against the individual harasser in his or her individual capacity.
The
fifth case - Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education - addresses the
issue of school district liability for student against student sexual harassment. The
Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the case in January and the Court's decision was
announced on May 24, 1999. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that schools may be held
liable for peer sexual harassment if the school had actual knowledge that the harassment
was occurring and the school exhibited deliberate indifference in failing to take
corrective action. Sandra Day O'Connor authored the majority opinion which established a
high threshold before liability can be imputed to a school - the plaintiff must show
"actual knowledge" and "deliberate indifference" by the school.
Anthony Kennedy wrote a 34-page dissent which argued that the decision would cause an
"avalanche" of sexual harassment lawsuits against school districts and that the
Court had overstepped its authority in trying to impose liability on schools for pervasive
behavior that will be difficult to control under any circumstances.
COMMON
THREADS AMONG SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASES
A key component in developing and implementing effective sexual harassment
policies and education programs is understanding the types of behaviors which most often
lead to complaints and litigation. The following is a list of specific behaviors taken
from actual sexual harassment cases involving athletics personnel. Many of them clearly
constitute sexual harassment, whereas some of them fall into the "gray area"
separating misconduct from proper conduct. The final resolution of each of these cases is
of less importance to our analysis here than the fact that each of these sets of behaviors
led to the filing of a sexual harassment complaint and/or a lawsuit. These behaviors, or
slight variations on these behaviors, are common to the vast majority of sexual harassment
complaints/lawsuits by students against athletics personnel. In other words, this is a
list of behaviors which, in order to minimize the chances of a sexual harassment complaint
or lawsuit, should be avoided.
A male football coach who was also a physical education teacher
repeatedly engaged in sexual intercourse with a fifteen-year-old female student, often
during the school day and on school
grounds.
A female physical education teacher repeatedly engaged in oral sex with an
eighteen-year-old male student-athlete, often during the school day on school grounds.
A twenty-four-year-old male baseball coach, after several months of
"just flirting around" with a seventeen-year-old female student-athlete, went on
one date with her, culminating in a limited "make-out session" that did not
include any "overtly sexual activity."
A twenty-five-year-old male football coach began dating an
eighteen-year-old female cheerleader. The relationship ended after four months.
A twenty-six-year-old male tennis coach repeatedly called one of his
female players at home and engaged her in conversations of a personal nature, on several
occasions asked her out on dates (which she refused), and on a couple of occasions gave
her greeting cards with messages of a personal nature and gifts of a personal nature
(including a diamond pendant and lingerie).
A male coach of a girls soccer team often gave the sixteen- year-old
female plaintiff a ride home from practice, during which time he would question her about
her boyfriend, her love life, and her sex life.
A female coach of a girls field hockey team repeatedly had intimate
one-on-one discussions with various team members regarding problems she was having in her
own personal relationships and inquiring about the personal relationships of her players,
including details about their love and sex lives.
A male coach of a girls basketball team consistently used sexually
explicit and sexually derogatory language during practice, often making sexually
derogatory comments directed at specific players.
A male coach of a girls softball team affixed pictures of nude women to
the wall of the locker room, allegedly to motivate his players during cardio and weight
workouts to aspire to "get into the same shape as the women in the pictures."
A male coach of a girls basketball team consistently grabbed players by
the arms and around the waist to correct their position on the court and, as he explained
concepts and techniques, he would stand with his hands remaining on the players for
several minutes at a time.
A male coach of a girls basketball team consistently hugged his players as
they came off the court at the end of games and during post-game celebrations in the
locker room. Despite complaints by some of the girls about the nature and duration of the
hugs, and complaints by some parents to the school's athletics director, the behavior
continued.
A male coach of a girls volleyball team repeatedly called the plaintiff at
home and engaged her in conversation on personal topics, including his unhappiness in his
marriage, his fondness for the player and the extent to which he enjoyed talking to and
spending time with the player.
A male football coach, over a number of years and with a number of
different girls at the school, would consistently make comments such as "you really
look sexy in that outfit" and "you really ought to be a model." He also
repeatedly made comments on specific physical attributes of the girls.
A male athletic trainer, over a number of years and with a number of
different girls, consistently made non-medical comments regarding the appearance of the
girls' legs, breasts, buttocks, or other physical attributes.
A female athletic trainer, over a number of years and with a number of
different girls teams, would watch the girls as they were showering at school after
practice or games.
A male swimming coach, at an unchaperoned, overnight, out-of-town meet,
asked the sixteen-year-old female plaintiff to come to his hotel room, where after serving
alcohol to her, he tried to kiss and fondle her.
A male basketball coach, at an unchaperoned, overnight, out-of-town
tournament, asked the seventeen-year-old female plaintiff to meet with him after-hours to
discuss the upcoming game. He took her to a bar, ordered an alcoholic drink for her (which
she refused), and asked her to dance (which she refused), and asked her to come to his
hotel room (which she also refused).
A male softball coach, at the state tournament, asked the fifteen-year-old
female plaintiff to come to his hotel room to discuss the upcoming game. Although he had
no physical contact with her, he "...laid on the bed in a pair of those elastic
coaching shorts and no shirt on and leered at me the whole time I was in the room. It was
creepy."
A male soccer coach consistently told the members of his girls team
sexually explicit jokes.
A male football coach repeatedly asked a cheerleader, who also was the
student-assistant for one of his p.e. classes, for private meetings after hours and on
more than one occasion he showed up at her house at times when she was home alone.
A male physical education instructor repeatedly engaged in personal
conversations with a female student-assistant for one of his classes, gave her letters
which included detailed descriptions of his feelings for her and explicit references to
his desire to have sex with her.
A male baseball coach repeatedly asked several different female members of
the cheerleading squad for dates and showed pornographic materials to one of the
girls in what he himself described as an attempt to "get you in the mood."
"PREVENTATIVE-MEDICINE"
LESSONS TO BE LEARNED FROM THE BEHAVIORS IN HARASSMENT LAWSUITS
Although not a comprehensive list, the above-described behaviors are very
typical of the facts which emerge in the vast majority of sexual harassment complaints and
lawsuits against educational institutions and athletics personnel in recent years. It
should be noted that the above information was taken only from cases involving harassment
of students by athletics personnel. Workplace harassment of school employees by school
personnel and student-student peer sexual harassment are entirely separate issues not
addressed in this analysis.
The
"preventative medicine" lessons to be learned from these types of cases are
clear. And although training programs on the prevention of sexual harassment tend to refer
to the topic of prevention as "sensitivity training," a more accurate term might
be "common sense training." Therefore, consider the following recommendations to
be ten "common sense" suggestions for preventing sexual harassment and sexual
harassment claims against your school and its athletics personnel. And remember, despite
the obvious nature of most of these recommendations, each has been the ongoing subject of
numerous sexual harassment lawsuits against schools, teachers, and athletics personnel.
TEN
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PREVENTING SEXUAL
HARASSMENT IN SCHOOLS & ATHLETICS PROGRAMS
Teachers
and athletics personnel should never use sexually explicit language or tell sexually
explicit/off color jokes in the presence of students or student-athletes.
Teachers
and athletics personnel should never display sexually explicit or pornographic
pictures/materials on school property and should never show such materials to students or
student-athletes under any circumstances.
Teachers
and athletics personnel should avoid engaging in excessively personal conversations, both
in person and on the phone, with students or student-athletes.
Teachers
and athletics personnel should avoid sending excessively personal letters, cards, emails,
or gifts to students or student-athletes.
Teachers
and athletics personnel should avoid commenting on the physical appearance, including
manner of dress and specific physical attributes, of students or student-athletes.
Teachers
and athletics personnel should avoid to the greatest extent possible physical contact with
or touching of students or student-athletes.
Teachers
and athletics personnel should avoid giving students or student-athletes rides home alone
or even in groups where eventually only one student will remain in the car alone with the
adult.
Teachers
and athletics personnel should avoid off-school- property, one-on-one meetings alone with
students or student-athletes, especially in the home of the student or the adult.
Teachers
and athletics personnel should never plan or take unchaperoned overnight school or
athletics trips with students or student athletes and, on properly chaperoned trips,
should exercise an even greater degree of caution and propriety regarding interaction with
students or student athletes.
Teachers
and athletics personnel should never date students or student-athletes under any
circumstances. Issues of power differential, consent, and credibility make such
relationships untenable within any level of educational institution.
CONCLUSION
In
summary, all of the above suggestions deal with the careful attention which must be paid
by teachers and athletics personnel to boundary issues regarding the students in their
charge. It is critically important that, with regard to such boundary issues, educators
avoid both impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. And although some of these
recommendations may seem to be extreme or excessive - themselves an overreaction to what
has been described as a wave of litigation risk management hysteria sweeping America's
workplaces and educational institutions regarding sexual harassment - it is difficult to
argue that schools and educators owe anything less than the highest possible degree of
care to protect students from sexual harassment. Certainly, several of the above
recommendations have drawbacks. Yet none of the drawbacks are ones which ultimately will
impede the ability of teachers and athletics personnel to perform their duties. In the
end, these recommendations will impede only the likelihood of students being subjected to
immoral, unethical and illegal sexual harassment and your school and its personnel being
subjected to liability for that harassment..
FOR MORE INFORMATION ON SPORTS
LAW ISSUES
AFFECTING PROFESSIONAL, COLLEGIATE & SCHOLASTIC
ATHLETICS PROGRAMS, CHECK OUT OUR WEBSITE AT:
WWW.SPORTSLAWPUBLISHING.COM
Sports
Law Publishing Home Page
Covering All The Bases / A Level
Playing Field
Sexual Harassment In Schools & Athletics Programs
Sports Law Academy Online / Ordering
Information
Sports Law Consulting Services / Sports
Law Links
If You Have Inquiries Regarding
This Website
Or Any Of Sports Law Publishing's Products Or Services,
Please Call Toll Free 888/791-2542
|
