Complaint Against Geno Amended

[Wbbfan1]

ESPN - Link

Hostile Work Environment instead of Sexual MisConduct.

 

[EricLA]

Is this for real now?

But in an amended complaint filed Wednesday, Hardwick alleges she was subjected to a hostile work environment in London. She says she was denied proper credentials and that Auriemma yelled at her during a practice

So now she's adding to it a hostile work environment and what not? I hope Geno's lawyers bury her. She's got zero proof and I hope Geno counter sues her for defamation.

 

[rbny1]

Here's a link to the amended complaint:

New Version

 

[UConnChapette]

Wish this thing would just go away already. She got her gig in the Olympics. Seems to me she is now just out for the money and probably improved her chances by changing it to hostile work environment.

 

[ucdt3]

ESPN - Link

Hostile Work Environment instead of Sexual MisConduct.

Wrong. Now it's BOTH Hostile Work Environment AND Sexual Misconduct.

 

[CTGirl15]

Wasn't she working with the Mens team in London? What would she even be doing at the Womens practice? Maybe Geno "yelled" at her because she wasn't supposed to be at the practice. Good grief, this is getting ridiculous.

 

[doggydaddy]

Geno yells at everyone at a practice. She should feel honored.

 

[LesMis89]

Let me see if I have this straight:

June 2012 - Hardwick files lawsuit against Geno and USA Basketball saying she was kept off the security detail for the London Olympics because she refused to snooky up with Geno in 2009.

July 27 to August 12, 2012 - London Olympics held with Hardwick assigned to a security detail

October 25, 2012 - Hardwick amends lawsuit to include a 'Hostile Work Environment' saying that she was denied proper credentials and that Geno yelled at her in practice.

Gee, she files a suit in June because she didn't get to be on a security detail for the London Olympics. But, yes she does so she then changes her complaint because of a lack of 'proper credentials' and Geno yelled at her in practice.

- Would love to know just what 'proper credentials' she was denied and how in heck Geno had anything to do with them.
- Why was she at one of Geno's practices?
- Since she should have prior knowledge of Geno's behavior during practices (the man yells. Period), wouldn't she have to prove that his behavior now is different that it was then?

And what the heck was she doing at one of his practices?

 

[CamrnCrz1974]

In assessing whether the plaintiff can make a prima facie showing that he suffered a materially adverse action, courts ascertain whether, taken together, any actions attributable to these individuals “show that a reasonable employee would have found the [conduct] materially adverse, which in this context means it well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 57 (2006); see also Alvarado v. Donahoe, ___ F.3d ___ (1st Cir. July 19, 2012) (quoting Burlington Northern).

Under the hostile work environment theory that Hardwick presses, even a string of trivial annoyances will not suffice to make an adverse action showing: “the alleged harassment must be severe or pervasive.” Alvarado, ___ F.3d at ___ (internal quotations omitted). And any alleged abuse must be both objectively offensive (as viewed from a reasonable person’s perspective) and subjectively so (as perceived by the employee). Id. (citation omitted).

Consequently, the inquiry looks to separate the wheat from the chaff, to “distinguish between the ordinary ... vicissitudes of the workplace and actual harassment.” Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 787–88 (1998); Colón-Fontánez v. Mun. of San Juan, 660 F.3d 17, 43 (1st Cir. 2011); see also Alvarado, ___ F.3d at ___ (citing Faragher and Colón-Fontánez) (Alleged harassment that rural mail carrier with United States Postal Service who suffered from medical history of recurrent schizoaffective disorder endured at work was not sufficiently severe or pervasive so as to give rise to actionable hostile work environment claim, and thus could not serve as basis of claim for retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act following the employee’s charge of discrimination filed with the EEOC; although one supervisor's instructions to employee to deposit undelivered mail, keys, and other equipment in storage room outside branch if he returned to office from his route after-hours had caused employee to suffer anxiety and fear, the comment was not objectively offensive, and although taunting that employee received from other supervisor and co-workers was callous and objectionable, three such events over course of eight months did not constitute severe or pervasive conduct).

 

[doggydaddy]

In assessing whether the plaintiff can make a prima facie showing that he suffered a materially adverse action, courts ascertain whether, taken together, any actions attributable to these individuals “show that a reasonable employee would have found the [conduct] materially adverse, which in this context means it well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 57 (2006); see also Alvarado v. Donahoe, ___ F.3d ___ (1st Cir. July 19, 2012) (quoting Burlington Northern).

Under the hostile work environment theory that Hardwick presses, even a string of trivial annoyances will not suffice to make an adverse action showing: “the alleged harassment must be severe or pervasive.” Alvarado, ___ F.3d at ___ (internal quotations omitted). And any alleged abuse must be both objectively offensive (as viewed from a reasonable person’s perspective) and subjectively so (as perceived by the employee). Id. (citation omitted).

Consequently, the inquiry looks to separate the wheat from the chaff, to “distinguish between the ordinary ... vicissitudes of the workplace and actual harassment.” Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 787–88 (1998); Colón-Fontánez v. Mun. of San Juan, 660 F.3d 17, 43 (1st Cir. 2011); see also Alvarado, ___ F.3d at ___ (citing Faragher and Colón-Fontánez) (Alleged harassment that rural mail carrier with United States Postal Service who suffered from medical history of recurrent schizoaffective disorder endured at work was not sufficiently severe or pervasive so as to give rise to actionable hostile work environment claim, and thus could not serve as basis of claim for retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act following the employee’s charge of discrimination filed with the EEOC; although one supervisor's instructions to employee to deposit undelivered mail, keys, and other equipment in storage room outside branch if he returned to office from his route after-hours had caused employee to suffer anxiety and fear, the comment was not objectively offensive, and although taunting that employee received from other supervisor and co-workers was callous and objectionable, three such events over course of eight months did not constitute severe or pervasive conduct).

Can you put into layman's terms in a sentence or two? I'm too old to try to digest all that.

 

[CamrnCrz1974]

Can you put into layman's terms in a sentence or two? I'm too old to try to digest all that.

Sure.

One instance of being yelled at does not equal "severe and pervasive."

 

[speedoo]

Sure.

One instance of being yelled at does not equal "severe and pervasive."

Thanks Cam.

 

[magical2]

Is this for real now?

But in an amended complaint filed Wednesday, Hardwick alleges she was subjected to a hostile work environment in London. She says she was denied proper credentials and that Auriemma yelled at her during a practice

So now she's adding to it a hostile work environment and what not? I hope Geno's lawyers bury her. She's got zero proof and I hope Geno counter sues her for defamation.

Geno yelling at a practice? HUH Give me a break! I agree Eric!!!!

Thanks Cam. Your citing is an excellent posting! Your 1 sentence explanation for those who didnt wish to read it at length was to point!

LesMiz your post put the time line and other relevent qustions "Right to the point" Phil reminded me
again, for the 2nd time this week of Denzel's line "Explain this to me like I am a 6 year old"
Ira

 

[Kevin G]

This girl is a wreck!!!!

 

[Icebear]

This girl is a wreck!!!!

And she has what some would call the ultimate NBA ambulance chaser for her lawyer.

 

[HuskyNan]

He yelled at her? She's suing him for something he feels is untrue. What is surprising is that she's surprised he's pissed off.

 

[Jmpenn]

He yelled at her? She's suing him for something he feels is untrue. What is surprising is that she's surprised he's pissed off.

So if I'm pissed off it is ok for me to go into the office where I work and scream at a co-worker in front the rest of our co-workers while we should be working? I don't think my employer would be too happy no matter what the reason was.

 

[HuskyNan]

So if I'm pissed off it is ok for me to go into the office where I work and scream at a co-worker in front the rest of our co-workers while we should be working? I don't think my employer would be too happy no matter what the reason was.

Are you really equating a basketball arena with an office environment? LOL

And, yeah, it would be within the expected range of emotion for a person who feel unjustly accused to yell at the accuser, no matter the setting.

 

[Jmpenn]

Are you really equating a basketball arena with an office environment? LOL

And, yeah, it would be within the expected range of emotion for a person who feel unjustly accused to yell at the accuser, no matter the setting.

IMO it shouldn't be done in any kind of work environment. They should both act professionally while working. She could of course be exaggerating or lying about him screaming at her but it should be easy to verify if it happened.

 

[magical2]

Wrong. Now it's BOTH Hostile Work Environment AND Sexual Misconduct.

I read the entire filed complaint! ucd is correct that the amended filing has added aditional charges w/o eliminating the Sexual Misconduct charges. It is a fascinating reading,regardless of what our beliefs,feelings, thoughts may be

It will be very interesting to read what the legal filings in response to this are!
Inspite of Geno's and our desires on the one hand for this to be fought and in Eric's words "I hope Geno's Attornies bury her"

My guess that this will eventually be settled for money and other remuniations!
Since this is my belief, the sooner this is finished the better! There will also,I suspect be a non disclosure component! This envolves Geno,USA,NBA, other individuals!

There may very well be counter suits regarding "Defamation of Character" It will all be attornies
leveraging for a position of strength towards a settlement w/o a court trial with jurors!
Ira

 

[Kibitzer]

Wish this thing would just go away already. She got her gig in the Olympics. Seems to me she is just now out for the money. and probably improved her chances by changing it to hostile work environment

I amended UConnChapette's post without her knowledge or permission. I hope it's ok with her in the interest of brevity and clarification.

 

[EricLA]

IMO it shouldn't be done in any kind of work environment. They should both act professionally while working. She could of course be exaggerating or lying about him screaming at her but it should be easy to verify if it happened.

I'm quite sure you've either not followed this story at all, or not read any thing about it. Because it's the only thing I can think of without calling your posts dumb. The "new" complaint alleges that she was denied proper credentials (obviously that has nothing to do with Geno), and that he yelled at her in a practice.

Seriously? first of all, Geno and Pat (and Harry Peretta and Doug Bruno, and probably 95% of the other successful HC's out there in WCBB) ALL yell during practice. Now if this idiot has the nerve to show up at the practice of the Women's Olympic Team, when she's NOT on their security detail, frankly I'm surprised yelling at her is ALL Geno did. If I had to guess, he yelled at her to get the hell out of the building during the team's practice.

If you think that's inappropriate, then you've seriously never ever followed sports before.

 

[Jmpenn]

I'm quite sure you've either not followed this story at all, or not read any thing about it. Because it's the only thing I can think of without calling your posts dumb. The "new" complaint alleges that she was denied proper credentials (obviously that has nothing to do with Geno), and that he yelled at her in a practice.

Seriously? first of all, Geno and Pat (and Harry Peretta and Doug Bruno, and probably 95% of the other successful HC's out there in WCBB) ALL yell during practice. Now if this idiot has the nerve to show up at the practice of the Women's Olympic Team, when she's NOT on their security detail, frankly I'm surprised yelling at her is ALL Geno did. If I had to guess, he yelled at her to get the hell out of the building during the team's practice.

If you think that's inappropriate, then you've seriously never ever followed sports before.

Did you read the complaint, Eric? It states that she was assigned security for the shoot around. She had to be there and was working. If she is lying about that then it will be easily verified. Also there was more in the complaint than the yelling. I get that fans of Geno are going to believe him. I would do the same if this happened with Pat. I also admit that I am more likely to consider Hardwick's story because I am not a fan of Geno. But I have followed the case and read through the complaint.

 

[Jmpenn]

I actually think many of you have not read the new complaint or you would be even madder at Hardwick. Hardwick is not claiming that this was just yelling. She is claiming that it was assault. Pages 21 and 22 she states that she was in fear for her safety during the practice. She says that she feared that Geno was about to commit a battery.

 

[doggydaddy]

So if I'm pissed off it is ok for me to go into the office where I work and scream at a co-worker in front the rest of our co-workers while we should be working? I don't think my employer would be too happy no matter what the reason was.

Well, it's not an office, they are not co-workers, and you left off the part about being sued by this person.