Protecting the Program or Protecting the Athlete? When Leagues Ignore Sexual Harassment in Sport

Athletic programs are often built around loyalty. Athletes are expected to trust their coaches, support their teammates, represent their school or organization, and place the success of the team above individual interests. When that culture is healthy, it can create camaraderie and a strong sense of community. 

But loyalty to a program should never require athletes to remain silent about sexual harassment or misconduct. 

Problems can arise when a school, university, athletic department, league, or other organization becomes more concerned about protecting its reputation than protecting the people participating in its programs. A successful coach may bring championships, publicity, donors, recruits, or significant revenue. A star athlete may be viewed as essential to a team’s success. Those considerations can create pressure to minimize complaints or discourage reporting. 

When allegations of sexual harassment in athletics surface, an institution’s response matters. 

Administrators should not ignore a complaint because the accused person is valuable to the program. They should not discourage athletes from reporting because an investigation might attract unwanted publicity. Nor should they assume that sexual comments, unwanted touching, hazing, or other inappropriate behavior is simply part of sports culture. 

Depending on the circumstances, questions of athletic department liability can arise when institutions know about sexual misconduct and fail to investigate, supervise individuals accused of misconduct, or take reasonable steps to prevent future harm. 

California Laws: Mandatory Investigation 

The legal responsibilities of an athletic organization depend heavily on the relationship between the parties. A college student, professional athlete, athletic department employee, coach, trainer, volunteer, and youth sports participant may be protected by different laws. 

California law recognizes that sexual harassment can occur in both employment and educational settings. California’s Education Code defines sexual harassment to include certain unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, visual, or physical sexual conduct occurring in a work or educational setting. 

For athletes who are also employees, coaches, trainers, or other athletic personnel working for an employer covered by California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, California law imposes responsibilities concerning harassment prevention and correction. 

Employers are generally expected to take reasonable steps to prevent and correct discriminatory and harassing behavior. Harassment-prevention policies should also provide procedures for responding to complaints, conducting timely and impartial investigations, documenting complaints, and implementing appropriate corrective measures. 

An organization should not simply receive a serious harassment complaint and place it in a file. 

An appropriate investigation may involve interviewing the person who reported the conduct, speaking with the accused, identifying witnesses, reviewing messages or other records, and determining whether corrective action is necessary. 

In the athletic context, institutional failures can be more subtle than an outright refusal to investigate. 

An athletic department might technically open an investigation while failing to collect important messages, interview relevant witnesses, or consider prior complaints. In other situations, decision-makers may allow the person accused of misconduct to continue exercising authority over the athlete who reported it. 

A superficial investigation is not necessarily the same as a meaningful response. 

Prior notice can be especially significant in sports sexual misconduct cases. Administrators may have warning signs even without a formal written complaint. Coaches may observe inappropriate conduct, athletes may complain to trainers, parents may raise concerns, or previous reports may involve the same person. 

Institutions should take those warning signs seriously rather than waiting for misconduct to escalate. 

Failure to supervise can also become an issue. Athletic programs frequently place athletes in settings where coaches, trainers, and team personnel have significant access and authority, including locker rooms, team travel, hotels, training facilities, camps, and private meetings. 

If an institution knows that a particular coach, staff member, or athlete has previously engaged in inappropriate conduct, allowing the same circumstances to continue without reasonable safeguards may expose others to preventable harm. 

Sexual misconduct can also escalate. What begins with sexual comments, invasive jokes, or boundary violations may develop into unwanted touching, coercion, sexual assault, or other serious misconduct if warning signs are repeatedly ignored. 

Organizations also should not assume that responsibility disappears because misconduct occurs away from the playing field. 

Teams travel together, stay in hotels, attend social events, communicate through group chats, and participate in team-sponsored gatherings. Whether an institution has responsibility for particular conduct depends on the facts and applicable law, but an off-campus location does not automatically eliminate the connection to the athletic program. 

When Winning Becomes More Important Than Reporting 

One of the most difficult circumstances occurs when the accused person is important to the success of the program. 

A coach may have an impressive winning record. A player may be expected to compete professionally. A program may depend heavily on alumni support, recruiting, or donations. Administrators may worry that allegations will affect the team’s reputation. 

None of those considerations should determine whether a harassment complaint receives a fair response. 

Institutional pressure can take subtle forms. An athlete may be encouraged to resolve the matter privately, wait until the season ends, or consider how a complaint could affect the team. Athletes may also be reminded of what the accused coach has done for their career. 

Even statements framed as concern for the program may discourage someone from pursuing a legitimate complaint. 

A culture that protects successful individuals can also encourage repeated misconduct. When athletes see that complaints against prominent coaches or players are ignored, they may conclude that reporting is pointless or dangerous. 

Questions of athletic department liability may therefore involve more than the underlying harassment itself. Depending on the circumstances, an attorney may examine whether an institution knew about previous misconduct, supervised the accused individual, followed its own policies, conducted an appropriate investigation, protected the reporting athlete, and took reasonable corrective measures. 

A failure to investigate does not create the same legal claim in every situation. However, an institution’s response after receiving notice of misconduct can be highly relevant to determining whether it fulfilled its legal obligations. 

How to Find the Right Attorney for You 

Cases involving athletic programs can involve overlapping areas of law. Finding an attorney who understands both sexual harassment and institutional responsibility can therefore be important. 

An athlete should feel comfortable asking a prospective attorney about experience with sexual harassment, retaliation, schools, universities, athletic organizations, or similar institutional cases. 

The attorney should also be willing to examine the conduct of the organization itself, rather than focusing only on the individual accused of misconduct. 

Important questions may include when administrators first learned about the allegations, whether similar complaints had been made before, who received those complaints, whether the institution investigated, and whether it took steps to prevent retaliation. 

An attorney may also help identify and preserve evidence. 

Text messages, emails, direct messages, team group chats, and social media posts can provide information about what occurred and who knew about it. Team policies, athlete handbooks, complaint procedures, personnel records, and disciplinary documents may help show how the institution was expected to respond. 

Witnesses may also be important. Other athletes may have observed the misconduct, experienced similar behavior, or heard coaches and administrators discuss prior complaints. 

Documentation created close in time to the events can be particularly useful. Athletes should consider preserving communications relating to both the misconduct and any report they made afterward. Notes identifying dates, locations, witnesses, and conversations with administrators can also help reconstruct what happened. 

An attorney can then evaluate which laws may apply. 

The available protections and remedies may differ depending on whether the person affected is a student-athlete, employee, professional athlete, coach, trainer, volunteer, or minor. Employment laws, education laws, negligence principles, contractual rights, and other protections may apply depending on the circumstances. 

Because legal deadlines can also apply, consulting an attorney early can help preserve potential claims while an internal investigation is still underway. 

Conclusion 

An athletic program’s reputation should never be valued more highly than the safety of its athletes. 

Schools, universities, athletic departments, leagues, and other sports organizations may face difficult situations when allegations involve successful coaches, prominent athletes, or valuable programs. But protecting an institution’s image is not a substitute for addressing sexual harassment and misconduct. 

When organizations receive reports of sexual harassment in athletics, they should take those reports seriously. That may require investigating what occurred, preserving evidence, speaking with witnesses, taking reasonable protective measures, and addressing misconduct rather than dismissing it as part of sports culture. 

Prior complaints, observations by staff, reports from athletes, inappropriate comments, and other boundary violations may indicate a broader problem that deserves attention. 

Athletes who believe an athletic organization ignored sports sexual misconduct should consider preserving emails, texts, group chats, social media messages, complaint records, and other documents showing both what occurred and how the organization responded. 

An attorney can help determine whether the conduct may support a claim, investigate what the athletic program knew, and evaluate whether failures involving investigation, supervision, or protection contributed to the harm. 

Winning seasons eventually end. An institution’s obligation to take the safety and dignity of the people in its program seriously should not depend on the record of the coach or athlete accused of misconduct. 

Contact Our Team Today!

Call: 213-269-4013

Email: [email protected]