04-02-2009, 10:28 PM
This was posted at DD. It appears to be fairly straightforward. The coach was an employee of the university in a managerial/supervisory capacity and was responsible for providing instruction, coaching and leadership to the female student-athletes. He was entrusted to protect the welfare of the student-athletes and not engage in any type of sexual relationship with his charges.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,511785,00.html
Is today's culture that far gone where there is even a question about whether 1) the coach's actions were wrong and 2) the university, as the employer, was responsible for having oversight over their employee?
Quote:Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Associated Press
MOUNT PLEASANT, Mich. — Central Michigan University has agreed to pay $450,200 after two women's soccer players accused their coach of inappropriate sexual activity.
The deal signed Monday by Central Michigan is split evenly between the women and includes $150,000 for their lawyer.
The lawyer, Jennifer Salvatore, says the women had sexual relationships with Tony DiTucci. She says they were victims of his "manipulation and seduction."
DiTucci departed in October after allegations of sexual harassment.
In a statement released through his lawyer, he says he's innocent and accuses the women of making "suggestive romantic advances."
One woman was a senior and the other was a freshman. Central Michigan says it was best to settle the matter before a lawsuit was filed.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,511785,00.html
Is today's culture that far gone where there is even a question about whether 1) the coach's actions were wrong and 2) the university, as the employer, was responsible for having oversight over their employee?