Appeals Court Says Olympic Committee Not Negligent for Abuse of Taekwondo Athletes
The justices for the Second District Court of Appeal determined the U.S. Olympic Committee did not have a duty of care, because it lacked a direct relationship with coaches and athletes.
October 09, 2019 at 06:23 PM
4 minute read
The U.S. Olympic Committee is off the hook for negligence in a case where an Olympic taekwondo coach sexually assaulted underaged athletes, but USA Taekwondo could still be held liable for the abuse, according to a California appellate court ruling.
The justices for the Second District Court of Appeal determined that USOC did not have a duty of care because it lacked a direct relationship with coaches and athletes. On the other hand, USA Taekwondo, which oversees the sport for the Olympic committee, had a special relationship with coaches and could have stepped in to protect the athletes, the judges ruled. The court affirmed the dismissal of USOC from the case, but remanded the claims of negligence against USAT to the trial court.
"USAT's failure to take any steps prior to 2013 to prevent taekwondo coaches from sexually abusing female athletes is closely connected to the injury plaintiffs suffered because action by USAT could have reduced the risk of plaintiffs being abused by limiting inappropriate contact between coaches and youth athletes," wrote Associate Justice Gail Ruderman Feuer, who was joined by Presiding Justice Dennis Perluss and Associate Justice Laurie D. Zelon.
Brianna Bordon, Yazmin Brown and Kendra Gatt first sued their coach Marc Gitelman, USOC and USAT in 2015 over claims that Gitelman sexually abused the Taekwondo competitors when they were 15 and 16 years old. The plaintiffs were members of USAT, and Gitelman was a registered coach with the organization, as required to compete in the Olympics.
Gitelman was ultimately sentenced to four years in prison on multiple felony sex charges and ordered to pay a $60 million judgement to three of his victims.
In November 2016, Judge Michael Vicencia of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County sustained USOC and USAT's motions for demurrer that argued plaintiffs asserted uncertain causes of actions and failed to state their claim with facts. "Gitelman was not an employee or agent of either of the defendants and the facts alleged do not make him one," Vicenia wrote in his order.
On appeal, the sexual abuse survivors contended that USOC's ability to decommission national governing bodies such as USAT demonstrated that they could have taken action to prevent the abuse.
The court, however, did not find a direct relationship. "These allegations show USOC had the ability to regulate USAT's conduct, but they do not establish that USOC had the ability to control Gitelman's conduct, or USOC was in the best position to protect plaintiffs from Gitelman's sexual abuse," Ruderman Feuer wrote.
The athletes also alleged that both organizations had full knowledge of "rampant" sexual abuse from coaches as far back as 1999, when USOC required all national governing bodies—including USAT—to have insurance to cover sexual abuse by coaches.
The plaintiffs also allege that USAT received regular complaints of sexual abuse from parents and athletes and it was "aware that female taekwondo athletes, and Olympian level athletes in general were frequently victims of sexual molestation by their coaches yet did nothing to protect these athletes from such abuse." However, USAT did not adopt policies to protect members until 2013, according to the opinion.
Based on these allegations, the court found that USAT should have been able to foresee the risk that "youth athletes attending Olympic qualifying competitions with their coaches might be sexually molested by their coaches, regardless of whether USAT had knowledge of prior sexual misconduct by Gitelman," the justice wrote.
Estey & Bomberger' Stephen Estey in San Diego; B. Robert Allard of Corsiglia McMahon & Allard in San Jose; and Jon Williams of Williams Iagmin in San Diego represented the plaintiffs. They did not respond to a request for comment at the time of publication.
Patrick E. Stockalper of Kjar, McKenna, Stockalper in El Segundo defended USAT. Clyde & Co.'s Douglass Collodel, Margaret Holm and M. Christopher Hall counseled the USOC. The defendants' attorneys also did not respond to a request for comment at the time of publication.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllIn Lawsuit, Ex-Google Employee Says Company’s Layoffs Targeted Parents and Others on Leave
6 minute readMorrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250