A former swimmer at Western Kentucky University (WKU) has sued the school, administrators, coaches, and fellow swimmers, claiming he was subjected to “acts of physical, mental, emotional abuse, harassment, and discrimination.”
Plaintiff Collin Craig was an accomplished high school swimmer in California when he decided to accept a scholarship offer and begin his collegiate swimming career at WKU in the fall of 2014. However, that “dream of athletic and academic excellence at WKU quickly turned into a nightmare,” according to a detailed complaint.
Among other things, Craig was forced to consume alcohol, physically abused by his teammates when they hit his testicles, humiliated when they blindfolded him and forced him to strip to his underwear, and threatened with sexual violence. “As a result of the abuse, harassment, and discrimination Mr. Craig suffered, he did not return to WKU after the fall semester,” according to the complaint.
The plaintiff went on to note that WKU and the NCAA each have policies to prevent such abuse, “placing the onus on coaches and administrators to work to prevent hazing.” The coaches and administrators, identified as individual defendants, included Head Swim Coach Bruce Marchionda, Assistant Swim Coach Brian Thomas, Athletic Director Todd Stewart.as well as Associate ADs John McCammon and Craig Biggs. These men “failed to follow the advised policies of the NCAA to prevent hazing, including but not limited to taking time to educate and provide written materials to swim team members about the fallacy and criminal nature of such actions,” according to the complaint.
Craig went on to charge that WKU violated 20 U.S.C. section 1681 (a) with its actions, which “constituted discrimination on the basis of sex.” Further, he claimed, the “behavior (of the defendant was) so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive” that he was “denied equal access to education,” which the aforementioned law “was designed to protect.”
Craig assailed the individual defendants for violating 42 U.S.C. section 1983 as they were “deliberately indifferent to this unconstitutional conduct.” Further, “in their respective individual capacities, had notice of this pattern and practice of abuse.”
In addition, the plaintiff asserted claims of negligence, negligent hiring, supervision, and training against all the individual defendants. Other allegations included battery, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and tortious interference with contractual relations.
After learning of Craig’s lawsuit, WKU issued the following statement: “WKU completed a thorough investigation into this matter and will be defending the lawsuit filed by Mr. Craig. Given the fact this matter is in litigation, we do not feel as though we can make any further comment at this time and all other questions should be directed to our attorney, Thomas N. Kerrick.”
The full complaint can be viewed here: http://media.graytvinc.com/documents/20151002162721727.pdf
Dr. Colleen A. McGlone, Professor and Chair, Department of Recreation and Sport Management College of Science Coastal Carolina University, offered the following opinion on the litigation.
“From the information contained in the complaint that this was clearly and act of hazing,” McGlone, who has written extensively on the topic, told Sports Litigation Alert.
“When considering the complaint and the statement contained within, we should take the time to understand that Current hazing legislation varies from state to state, and the punishments for hazing may include a fine, imprisonment or both depending on the state and the severity of the hazing incident. With the various definitions of hazing, the average individual may have great difficulty determining what constitutes hazing, as well as what types of behaviors may be regarded as hazing. Similarly, when one looks at the legal definitions of hazing and anti-hazing statutes, it becomes increasingly difficult to develop legislation that encompasses all aspects of hazing without compromising constitutional rights. The ambiguity in hazing laws, combined with the continuance of hazing activities, has created the call from hazing advocates for the establishment of national anti-hazing legislation. This legislation may create consistency in determining the legal threshold for hazing, as well as the penalty for hazing.
“Considering the policies cited in the complaint, the state of Kentucky Statute: §164.375 defines hazing as ‘1) Hazing: an action or situation which recklessly or intentionally endangers mental or physical health or involves the forced consumption of liquor or drugs.’ The statute also clearly and directly prohibits ‘any action or situation which recklessly or intentionally endangers mental or physical health or involves the forced consumption of liquor or drugs for the purpose of initiation into or affiliation with any organization.’ Therefore as the complaint states the incident in question would be hazing.”
McGlone also noted that the NCAA “does not have any written hazing by laws or policies addressing hazing. In fact, they leave hazing policy up to the conferences and schools that make up their membership. This is startling since research indicates that student athletes indicate that if the NCAA penalized teams, schools and students for hazing it would get their attention and go a long way to reduce hazing within NCAA athletic teams (McGlone, 2005). It is surprising that with the knowledge and the admission by student athletes that if the NCAA stepped in and created some sort of penalty for teams who haze that this would help curb hazing practices that the NCAA has not created a policy. It is important that the NCAA takes a stand against hazing and the recent efforts of the organization to bring hazing to light as an issue is commendable. However, it stops short of creating an effective policy that helps to stem the culture of hazing within the NCAA. To its credit the NCAA has publicly taken a stand and addressed the issue in a Hazing symposium during the 2008 NCAA national conference. In addition, the NCAA has developed hazing prevention materials (McGlone, 2008).
“The fact remains hazing continues and will likely be a cause for concern in the future. The question is how do administrators handle and deal with the issues when they occur? While there is no one perfect answer the recommended approach is to develop a multi-faceted program. The foundation of this approach centers on education. Administrators need to address the issue in a clear and open fashion. In addition, bullying and hazing needs to be discussed with students, administrators, parents, coaches, health care teams and anyone involved with organization in order to ensure everyone is on the same page. Too often schools establish a policy, put it in the handbook and rely totally on the fact that those that need to understand the issue will read about it in the manual. Education programs need to squarely address the topic, address the myths associated with hazing and bullying, offer alternatives to achieve the cohesion it is often associated with these types of behaviors and establish reporting procedures and ramifications for being associated with hazing practices.”
