The CCSD Board Approved a settlement for alleged workplace harassment–all while the trustee accused of harassment was threatening to sue the Board. [TNI]
The Board also approved the creation of a gender-diverse policy. [Fox5Vegas; TNI]
Raiders Stadium is on schedule and on budget, so far. [Las Vegas Sun; RJ]
MGM strategically released footage of the October 1 shooter before the shooting. [RJ]
Meanwhile, Metro and the media are still fighting over release of Metro’s files. [Fox5Vegas]
So, I found out yesterday that the Nevada Court of Appeals does not use electronic filing. What kind of crap is that? They deal only in paper. Is this just another passive-aggressive measure from the Supreme Court to neuter the Court of Appeals?
It's ridiculous that it has taken so long for the Court of Appeals to get e-filing. Perhaps if the Supreme Court had not spent so much money on that ugly-ass building, and its even uglier new fence, they could have paid for the e-filing system. It's clear that their priorities are on themselves and not litigants or practitioners. Shameful.
The CCSD Board issue sounds like there is a lot missing from the story. Either that, or the settlement is ludicrous. The settlement, approved only by a 4 to 3 vote, is ostensibly designed to protect, and compensate, a deputy superintendent from sexual harassment an elected school trustee.
First off, a Deputy Superintend is pretty high up on the school district food chain. For sexual harassment to be sustained, she would need to be in a subordinate work relationship to the alleged harasser. But the alleged harasser is just one of several elected, and thus temporary, school trustees. Is this school trustee really in a superior position to the alleged victim? Actually, to me it seems that the alleged harasser is lower on the food chain than the deputy superintendent, although these determinations can admittedly be a little difficult to make at times as the deputy superintendent is an appointed administrator while the trustee is in an elected, rotating position of fixed,finite duration. But it just does not sound like each of these elected, temporary trustees is the "boss" of the superintendent of schools, or even the deputy superintendent. Perhaps someone who knows the pecking order can explain it.
Secondly, part of the agreement is the deputy superintendent can now work from home. Is this really the only feasible way to protect her from the alleged harasser? Seems absurd. Why not invoke some protocol that if it is absolutely necessary for this particular trustee to transact business and communications with the deputy superintendent, that it be done electronically and/or by phone, and/or through a conduit?
So, now this deputy superintendent can wake when she wants, not battle through traffic to get to work like we mere mortals, and gets to "work from home" at her own leisure and schedule, because this is what is necessary to protect her from the alleged harasser?
Sexual harassment is ,of course, extremely serious, and there should be zero tolerance. That does not change the fact that the settlement as reported does not make much sense, and rather than taking the paths of least resistance(like simply mandating that he is to have no direct contact with her) they really over-react(by letting her work at home). That sets a very dangerous and de-stabilizing precedent that will not be limited to higher ranking officials like this deputy super. If rank and file female employees claim they cannot be adequately protected from a harasser, future settlements will also include an insistence that these basic or entry level workers get to work from home as well.
Interesting point in the article — this settlement has no money changing hands, not even attorney fees. It is purely to allow the claimant to have a non-standard work situation. I, too, am curious about the background on this.
But Childs' response is ludicrous. How is it slanderous to accept a settlement like this?
If the harasser was not an elected official, the district could terminate him. Since the district cannot summarily remove the trustee, a work-from-home arrangement seems reasonable. And can't the board of trustees fire the superintendent? If they can fire her boss, I don't see how she is not subordinate. Also, I would appreciate a cite for the claim that only superiors can sexually harass. As a management-side L&E lawyer, I should probably be aware of a case that overturns decades of HWE precedent.
There is no such case. But ordinarily these cases deal with the harassers being in a superior position. Once in a while, the workers are on an equal footing. But a situation where the harasser is in the inferior position, these situations ordinarily self-resolve long before there is any litigation or formal action. Harassers life-span at their jobs is dramatically short if they attempt to harass and sexually proposition their bosses and supervisors.
Obviously, but here a deputy superintendent cannot fire an elected trustee, so it isn't at all similar to a situation where a subordinate is inappropriate to a superior.
Easiest solution to all this,(if there is not a sufficiently compelling legal basis, or if it is otherwise too protracted, complicated and dicey to remove an embattled offcial through administrative channels)is to handle this matter at the ballot box.
All elected officials will regularly stand for re-election.Problem is people have a tendency to bitch endlessly about public officials who attract controversy, and people talk about re-call, impeachment or other very complex and expensive, and seldom successful, administrative/legal attempts to remove someone from office.But they ignore the easiest way–field a viable opponent to run against them, and take advantage of the negative media attention the embattled incumbent will continue to attract during his/her re-election attempt.
Kevin Child's lawsuit threat is upon the advice of his counsel, who is one of our Attorney General candidates. Slightly different take on the strategy outlined in 1:33
Yes it is. Also pushing the CoA cases onto a different system. Consider this: The Court of Appeals Decisions were pushed off of the page links for "Appellate Decisions", even on the Court of Appeals own page.
Look on the right: Under Appellate Courts Decisions, you can choose Advance Opinions, Forthcoming Opinions, Nevada Reports, Supreme Court Unpublished Orders. CoA Decisions are now not appellate decisions? CoA Unpublished Decisions used to be on there but got removed.
I just looked at this link and if you mouse over "Case Information" the Court of Appeals unpublished decisions between Supreme Court unpublished orders and Nevada Reports. Not sure what you're looking at, but it's right there on the same page with everything else.
Correct. You have to go to "Case Information". The tab on the right side of each page that says "Appellate Court Decisions" no longer lists CoA Decisions as one of your options. It used to be there on every page and it got removed.
Also, if you go to Case Information and click on the link for Supreme Court Unpublished, it takes you to the unpublished decision page, but there is no link to access the CoA's unpublished decisions. But, if you click on the link for the CoA's unpublished decisions first, then there is a link for the Supreme Court's unpublished decisions. I realize that the CoA is now pointless, since its decisions cannot be cited for anything of value (except in the very limited circumstances provided by the rules), but the entire thing is set up to make the CoA look stupid IMHO.
I think that result is too bad, because I think the decisions from the Court of Appeals have, by and large, been much better thought out (even if one disagrees with the conclusion) than the decisions from the Supreme Court.
I have some of the same questions and concerns as 10:17. Perhaps attorneys skilled in this area can address the matter.
One problem may simply be how the media chooses to report it–what they choose to emphasize and even exaggerate and distort, and what they choose to totally omit from the reporting.
Guest
Anonymous
March 23, 2018 5:44 pm
The article did not say sexual harassment – it said harassment and intimidation. Or am I missing something?
Guest
Anonymous
March 23, 2018 6:00 pm
Isn't this the same guy banned from visiting schools because he creeped people out?
Anything exciting at the Las Vegas Defense Lawyers party last night? Probably a stupid question…excitement and civil defense attorneys don't really go together all that well.
So, I found out yesterday that the Nevada Court of Appeals does not use electronic filing. What kind of crap is that? They deal only in paper. Is this just another passive-aggressive measure from the Supreme Court to neuter the Court of Appeals?
Ha – its been that way from day one for the COA. You're lucky if you've never had to deal with it before.
How do you file them? I admit I have not done an appeal
You put it in the mail/overnight with a copy to be stamped and mailed back to you. I understand they will get flush toilets too, next year.
It's ridiculous that it has taken so long for the Court of Appeals to get e-filing. Perhaps if the Supreme Court had not spent so much money on that ugly-ass building, and its even uglier new fence, they could have paid for the e-filing system. It's clear that their priorities are on themselves and not litigants or practitioners. Shameful.
Did you know that the Supreme Court had the Court of Appeals set up a completely different case management system? Except the system does not work.
https://nvcourts.gov/COAPortal/
The CCSD Board issue sounds like there is a lot missing from the story. Either that, or the settlement is ludicrous. The settlement, approved only by a 4 to 3 vote, is ostensibly designed to protect, and compensate, a deputy superintendent from sexual harassment an elected school trustee.
First off, a Deputy Superintend is pretty high up on the school district food chain. For sexual harassment to be sustained, she would need to be in a subordinate work relationship to the alleged harasser. But the alleged harasser is just one of several elected, and thus temporary, school trustees. Is this school trustee really in a superior position to the alleged victim? Actually, to me it seems that the alleged harasser is lower on the food chain than the deputy superintendent, although these determinations can admittedly be a little difficult to make at times as the deputy superintendent is an appointed administrator while the trustee is in an elected, rotating position of fixed,finite duration. But it just does not sound like each of these elected, temporary trustees is the "boss" of the superintendent of schools, or even the deputy superintendent. Perhaps someone who knows the pecking order can explain it.
Secondly, part of the agreement is the deputy superintendent can now work from home. Is this really the only feasible way to protect her from the alleged harasser? Seems absurd. Why not invoke some protocol that if it is absolutely necessary for this particular trustee to transact business and communications with the deputy superintendent, that it be done electronically and/or by phone, and/or through a conduit?
So, now this deputy superintendent can wake when she wants, not battle through traffic to get to work like we mere mortals, and gets to "work from home" at her own leisure and schedule, because this is what is necessary to protect her from the alleged harasser?
Sexual harassment is ,of course, extremely serious, and there should be zero tolerance. That does not change the fact that the settlement as reported does not make much sense, and rather than taking the paths of least resistance(like simply mandating that he is to have no direct contact with her) they really over-react(by letting her work at home). That sets a very dangerous and de-stabilizing precedent that will not be limited to higher ranking officials like this deputy super. If rank and file female employees claim they cannot be adequately protected from a harasser, future settlements will also include an insistence that these basic or entry level workers get to work from home as well.
Interesting point in the article — this settlement has no money changing hands, not even attorney fees. It is purely to allow the claimant to have a non-standard work situation. I, too, am curious about the background on this.
But Childs' response is ludicrous. How is it slanderous to accept a settlement like this?
If the harasser was not an elected official, the district could terminate him. Since the district cannot summarily remove the trustee, a work-from-home arrangement seems reasonable. And can't the board of trustees fire the superintendent? If they can fire her boss, I don't see how she is not subordinate. Also, I would appreciate a cite for the claim that only superiors can sexually harass. As a management-side L&E lawyer, I should probably be aware of a case that overturns decades of HWE precedent.
There is no such case. But ordinarily these cases deal with the harassers being in a superior position. Once in a while, the workers are on an equal footing. But a situation where the harasser is in the inferior position, these situations ordinarily self-resolve long before there is any litigation or formal action. Harassers life-span at their jobs is dramatically short if they attempt to harass and sexually proposition their bosses and supervisors.
Obviously, but here a deputy superintendent cannot fire an elected trustee, so it isn't at all similar to a situation where a subordinate is inappropriate to a superior.
Easiest solution to all this,(if there is not a sufficiently compelling legal basis, or if it is otherwise too protracted, complicated and dicey to remove an embattled offcial through administrative channels)is to handle this matter at the ballot box.
All elected officials will regularly stand for re-election.Problem is people have a tendency to bitch endlessly about public officials who attract controversy, and people talk about re-call, impeachment or other very complex and expensive, and seldom successful, administrative/legal attempts to remove someone from office.But they ignore the easiest way–field a viable opponent to run against them, and take advantage of the negative media attention the embattled incumbent will continue to attract during his/her re-election attempt.
Sounds like 1:33 is Langford, who fortuitously filed against Wolfson in the middle of the RJ's jihad
Kevin Child's lawsuit threat is upon the advice of his counsel, who is one of our Attorney General candidates. Slightly different take on the strategy outlined in 1:33
Langford should have filed against Wolfie. Dude, let his buddy off for stealing campaign funds.
Wolfie=Wolfson. I like!
Yes it is. Also pushing the CoA cases onto a different system. Consider this: The Court of Appeals Decisions were pushed off of the page links for "Appellate Decisions", even on the Court of Appeals own page.
https://nvcourts.gov/Supreme/Decisions/Court_of_Appeals/Unpublished_Orders/
Look on the right: Under Appellate Courts Decisions, you can choose Advance Opinions, Forthcoming Opinions, Nevada Reports, Supreme Court Unpublished Orders. CoA Decisions are now not appellate decisions? CoA Unpublished Decisions used to be on there but got removed.
I just looked at this link and if you mouse over "Case Information" the Court of Appeals unpublished decisions between Supreme Court unpublished orders and Nevada Reports. Not sure what you're looking at, but it's right there on the same page with everything else.
Correct. You have to go to "Case Information". The tab on the right side of each page that says "Appellate Court Decisions" no longer lists CoA Decisions as one of your options. It used to be there on every page and it got removed.
Also, if you go to Case Information and click on the link for Supreme Court Unpublished, it takes you to the unpublished decision page, but there is no link to access the CoA's unpublished decisions. But, if you click on the link for the CoA's unpublished decisions first, then there is a link for the Supreme Court's unpublished decisions. I realize that the CoA is now pointless, since its decisions cannot be cited for anything of value (except in the very limited circumstances provided by the rules), but the entire thing is set up to make the CoA look stupid IMHO.
I think that result is too bad, because I think the decisions from the Court of Appeals have, by and large, been much better thought out (even if one disagrees with the conclusion) than the decisions from the Supreme Court.
Completely agree.
I have some of the same questions and concerns as 10:17. Perhaps attorneys skilled in this area can address the matter.
One problem may simply be how the media chooses to report it–what they choose to emphasize and even exaggerate and distort, and what they choose to totally omit from the reporting.
The article did not say sexual harassment – it said harassment and intimidation. Or am I missing something?
Isn't this the same guy banned from visiting schools because he creeped people out?
Careful, he may sue you for slander (even though that would be libel).
https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/education/ccsd-superintendent-clarifies-reason-for-ban-against-kevin-child/
Anything exciting at the Las Vegas Defense Lawyers party last night? Probably a stupid question…excitement and civil defense attorneys don't really go together all that well.
The strippers were fantastic!
FWIW the best lawyer party I ever went to was a Christmas party for an L&E practice group at a big firm.