I have been following this thread for a while now. Interesting reading to say the least. I'm not affiliated in any way with UNH (except some family attended eons ago) and don't have any facts except what has been reported. Here's what I know from news reports:
1. An incident occurred on the bench on Nov 30. We know that at the least, the coach admits to grabbing her shirt and giving her verbal admonishment.
2. The coach was terminated (I assume for "cause", which usually means he forfeits contractual benefits upon termination).
3. Fast forward about 2 months later, and a female "victim" files a complaint of simple assault with the UNH police department.
4. UNH asks for and receives assist from County and local police authorities. The investigation "is based on that (Nov 30) incident."
Feel free to tell me if I'm missing any facts that we all can agree on.
Now for some speculation and innuendo. What are the possible motives for a criminal investigation?
1. From the player's perspective, it could be simply that she feels termination isn't enough of a punishment, or she feels like the story has to get out so that everyone understands why she complained to UNH. But for financial motive, it is also possible that this could also be the precursor to a civil complaint, i.e. a lawsuit against McCloskey and UNH (UNH can't escape the suit as employer). If Coach is guilty of a misdemeanor, it helps support a civil case by the player, although she would have to show damages.
Agree with most of this. UNH *could* escape civil liability IF Coach was deemed to be acting far outside the course of employment with the severity of the alleged conduct - especially so if there was no previous history of such conduct. A longshot result though.
Damages would be VERY difficult to prove, though. Unless there was medical treatment or some sort of counseling, I would think. It is my understanding the player did not miss a shift in the subject game, played the next game, and for all I know continues to play.
2. From UNH's perspective, they may have encouraged a criminal complaint. Why? Because a finding of guilt for a misdemeanor would reinforce the termination with cause of McCloskey. The University should be concerned about a wrongful termination suit against them by McCloskey. He said that he grabbed a shirt and admonished the player, and that would likely not support a termination for cause in the eyes of a court or jury (although with a man vs woman, maybe they would?... see below for more on that). If he can show wrongful termination, and on top of that, that he is now unemployable in his field of expertise, he's got a pretty big payday coming. But if it can be shown that a misdemeanor was committed, their decision to terminate with cause is supported. The interesting thing here is that the UNH Police are definitely not an independent policing authority - they are an agency of the University. So it is plausible that there was encouragement by the UNH police department (who may have been encouraged by UNH lawyers) to get the player to file a criminal complaint. I find it interesting that the complaint wasn't filed immediately, but instead was lodged 60 days after the incident - maybe that's bad reporting, but if that's the case, it's unusual. By the way, bringing in Durham and county police agencies to assist/lead allows the investigation itself to ostensibly be unbiased.
I'm glad it was not me who posted this. But it is a very real (and very logically sound) potential motive.
3. For McCloskey, well, he probably would prefer no criminal investigation. The investigation further damages his reputation, and I think it is likely if it wasn't true before, it is true now that he is unemployable as a hockey coach. Although, the upside for him is that if a criminal charge isn't filed as a result of the investigation, that he would then have some further support for a wrongful termination suit.
Absolutely 100% dead-on accurate. And keep in mind, Coach is already represented by one of the most pre-eminent employment law attorneys in Boston ... who just happens to be a female. Who better than to represent Coach on the "male vs. female" issues you outline in the next paragraph. Very shrewd move by Coach.
For those who have asked "so when is the line crossed?"... it can be different from industry to industry and even employer to employer. Courts look to "norms" in a particular setting as a guideline to determine "if a line has been crossed". A coach grabbing a jersey and yelling at a player may be considered "reasonable behavior" in college football or hockey. It may not be seen that way in collegiate gymnastics or crew however. We do know that it is clearly unacceptable behavior in most office environments. Interestingly, physical abuse of a female athlete by a male coach may be considered differently than male to male or female to female. In other words, there might be a higher standard of conduct expected of a male coach who uses physicality with a female athlete, because of the perceived physical advantages of men over women (although I think these players could probably "handle themselves" with McCloskey). This male coach/female athlete relationship in a "rough and tough" sport like ice hockey is a relatively new phenomena, so this situation could establish some precedents.
Very salient points here. Do keep in mind however ... Coach McCloskey is not a hulking young guy, and until/unless someone tells me otherwise, he has no history of physical abuse of his players. And the purported victim was hardly intimidated by him, when she was unleashing a torrent of expletives at him as he attempted to address her after a substandard shift. Regardless of what you think of Coach's actions ... I suspect teammates will back Coach up about her use of expletives. And if so, the alleged *victim* seems less a victim, and more a significant contributing cause of her own purported damages.
For those who question UNH's handling of the case, you need to be careful. If, for example, the CI and subsequent trial results in a finding that McCloskey punched or pushed the player (not saying that happened, just theoretical), then UNH had absolutely no choice in the matter. UNH also has the sticky situation (mentioned above) of a male coach getting rough with a female athlete. UNH has significant financial exposure here - a lawsuit either from a player if they don't act, or from the coach if they over-acted. So when I say "be careful", it's because UNH was not presented with an easy, clear-cut problem to solve. The administration has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the university, even at the expense of a loyal coach's career. If you are the UNH President, for the financial sake of the institution, you may have made the same, exact decision.
Agreed, again to a point though. UNH easily could have avoided the libelous nature of the ham-handed press release that went out, and I get the sense that point alone is what angers many folks on this thread who have otherwise kept an open mind as to what actually happened. And if that is indeed the case ... is it therefore President Huddleston's fiduciary responsibility to sanction those who have thus created an entirely avoidable civil exposure (i.e. libel), and have complicated it by failing to issue a retraction or modification?
Lots of food for thought. I hope the conversation remains civil.
Thanks for adding to the discourse in a very positive way.
