Monta Ellis accused of Sexual Harassment

[indeedproceed]

In her lawsuit, which also names the team, Erika Ross Smith alleges Ellis began sending her explicit messages several times a day starting in November 2010 while she worked in the team's community relations department.

The messages included lines such as, "I want to be with you," and "Hey Sexy," and proposed sexual encounters, according to the lawsuit.

"On a micro level, my client has endured unwanted harassment, has suffered and continues to suffer emotional distress and trauma," Smith's attorney, Burton Boltuch, said at a news conference. "On a macro level, this type of conduct, especially in the sports world, must stop."

Boltuch said his client rejected Ellis' advances. Boltuch also showed a photo of what he said was Ellis' genitalia that the guard allegedly sent to Smith's cellphone.

A call to a spokesman for the Warriors was not returned. Ellis' agent, Jeffrey Fried, said he was en route to Oakland and didn't immediately have a comment.

According to the lawsuit, the Warriors changed Smith's job description and eventually fired her after Ellis' wife learned of the texts and complained to team executives.

"I was treated unfairly. I was let go," Smith, who has also worked for other NBA teams, said at the news conference.

The lawsuit alleges retaliation, wrongful termination and intentional infliction of emotional distress and seeks unspecified damages.

http://www.nba.com/2011/news/12/21/warriors-ellis-lawsuit.ap/index.html?rss=true

You would think that the team wouldn't be stupid enough to change someone's title and then terminate them after reporting something like this, but we'll see where the proof lies.

Seems like if the team hadn't completely botched the whole thing, we wouldn't even be hearing about this now.

Good job, GSW.

[BballTim]

To kind of sum up the response to multiple people....Person A didn't commit a crime and didn't witness one, but still reported it to his supervisors immediately. That's what supervisors are for. He's a football coach. He isn't their cop, social worker, lead investigator, and all-around McGuyver man too.

This is a complete misrepresentation of Joe Paterno and his relationship with Penn State. While technically his job title was only that of football coach, Joe Paterno was the most powerful individual on the Penn State campus. He was an institution more than the institution itself. He was literally able to get EVERYTHING he wanted during his tenure. There are repeated examples over his decades long career of the administration, the campus police, and even the local police bending the rules in Paterno's favor.

  I didn't follow the story any more than I had to, but I don't think the nature of Joe's relationship with  his "supervisors" changes what he's saying that much. It's not really Joe's job to investigate charges of sexual abuse. If I told a higher up at my company that I saw another employee doing something inappropriate at work (doing drugs, having sex with a co-worker or asubordinate or the like) he'd refer the matter to HR. That would probably end his involvement in the matter. Should the person that I told what I saw be fired if that employee continued the behavior in question?

Simply, Paterno KNEW about the events that transpired. He made no effort to get Sandusky removed from his position, or barred from coming to the school. This is tantamount to allowing it to happen.

  Again, I didn't follow this closely, but how did he KNOW exactly what transpired? Did he witness the event? Did the people who he reported it to come back and tell him that the allegations were true? Did he personally investigate the claim and find that the accusation was accurate?

[indeedproceed]

To kind of sum up the response to multiple people....Person A didn't commit a crime and didn't witness one, but still reported it to his supervisors immediately. That's what supervisors are for. He's a football coach. He isn't their cop, social worker, lead investigator, and all-around McGuyver man too.

This is a complete misrepresentation of Joe Paterno and his relationship with Penn State. While technically his job title was only that of football coach, Joe Paterno was the most powerful individual on the Penn State campus. He was an institution more than the institution itself. He was literally able to get EVERYTHING he wanted during his tenure. There are repeated examples over his decades long career of the administration, the campus police, and even the local police bending the rules in Paterno's favor.

  I didn't follow the story any more than I had to, but I don't think the nature of his relationship with  his "supervisors" changes what he's saying that much. It's not really Joe's job to investigate charges of sexual abuse. If I told a higher up at my company that I saw another employee doing something inappropriate at work (doing drugs, having sex with a co-worker or subordinate or the like) he'd refer the matter to HR. That would probably end his involvement in the matter. Should the person that I told what I saw be fired if that employee continued the behavior in question?

Simply, Paterno KNEW about the events that transpired. He made no effort to get Sandusky removed from his position, or barred from coming to the school. This is tantamount to allowing it to happen.

  Again, I didn't follow this closely, but how did he KNOW exactly what transpired? Did he witness the event? Did the people who he reported it to come back and tell him that the allegations were true? Did he personally investigate the claim and find that the accusation was accurate?

That's a pretty blithe way of rationalizing away a pretty terrible thing.

[fairweatherfan]

Simply, Paterno KNEW about the events that transpired. He made no effort to get Sandusky removed from his position, or barred from coming to the school. This is tantamount to allowing it to happen.

Actually that's not true - the school's response to the repeated allegations of abuse by Sandusky was first to force him into an early retirement, then to bar him from the football facilities after the McQueary incident. 

What they didn't do was go to the police or do anything to stop Sandusky from continuing to use his PSU experience and connections to run a charity and football camps targeted toward young boys.  That was what got so much pushback - they "took care of it" in-house in such a way that the abuse was allowed to continue for many more years than it had to.

[33_Larry Legend_33]

Find it interesting that it takes a year for this revelation to come out.  But I suppose that's the way this stuff works...always does, so it seems.

[BballTim]

To kind of sum up the response to multiple people....Person A didn't commit a crime and didn't witness one, but still reported it to his supervisors immediately. That's what supervisors are for. He's a football coach. He isn't their cop, social worker, lead investigator, and all-around McGuyver man too.

This is a complete misrepresentation of Joe Paterno and his relationship with Penn State. While technically his job title was only that of football coach, Joe Paterno was the most powerful individual on the Penn State campus. He was an institution more than the institution itself. He was literally able to get EVERYTHING he wanted during his tenure. There are repeated examples over his decades long career of the administration, the campus police, and even the local police bending the rules in Paterno's favor.

  I didn't follow the story any more than I had to, but I don't think the nature of his relationship with  his "supervisors" changes what he's saying that much. It's not really Joe's job to investigate charges of sexual abuse. If I told a higher up at my company that I saw another employee doing something inappropriate at work (doing drugs, having sex with a co-worker or subordinate or the like) he'd refer the matter to HR. That would probably end his involvement in the matter. Should the person that I told what I saw be fired if that employee continued the behavior in question?

Simply, Paterno KNEW about the events that transpired. He made no effort to get Sandusky removed from his position, or barred from coming to the school. This is tantamount to allowing it to happen.

  Again, I didn't follow this closely, but how did he KNOW exactly what transpired? Did he witness the event? Did the people who he reported it to come back and tell him that the allegations were true? Did he personally investigate the claim and find that the accusation was accurate?

That's a pretty blithe way of rationalizing away a pretty terrible thing.

  Again, I was actively avoiding the story (which was almost like avoiding the details of Clinton's impeachment) but from what I heard it's not like he had first-hand knowledge of the behavior, it's not like he was trying to cover it up, and it's not like he was trying to keep Sandusky from getting punished. All of the statements that I just made could be factually incorrect, but if not I'd say that there are a number of people who should be ahead of Joe on the blame list.

  And, for the record, I'm not a JoePa or Penn State fan, never have been.

[RyNye]

Actually that's not true - the school's response to the repeated allegations of abuse by Sandusky was first to force him into an early retirement, then to bar him from the football facilities after the McQueary incident.  

What they didn't do was go to the police or do anything to stop Sandusky from continuing to use his PSU experience and connections to run a charity and football camps targeted toward young boys.  That was what got so much pushback - they "took care of it" in-house in such a way that the abuse was allowed to continue for many more years than it had to.

Fair enough, I was exaggerating, but this makes it WORSE.

That they instituted some form of punishment made it clear that they DID know and recognize what was going on. That they didn't get the police involved is accessory, pure and simple. And there is no way you can use the argument that they didn't think the police needed to get involved ... there is no universe in which what was reported is not a serious crime.

EDIT:

Again, I was actively avoiding the story (which was almost like avoiding the details of Clinton's impeachment) but from what I heard it's not like he had first-hand knowledge of the behavior, it's not like he was trying to cover it up, and it's not like he was trying to keep Sandusky from getting punished.

Whether he had first-hand knowledge is more or less irrelevant, really. We DO know that he was told of some sort of inappropriate contact. The fact that he didn't think this report was serious enough to warrant any sort of serious investigation is still criminal negligence.

If I told a higher up at my company that I saw another employee doing something inappropriate at work (doing drugs, having sex with a co-worker or asubordinate or the like) he'd refer the matter to HR. That would probably end his involvement in the matter. Should the person that I told what I saw be fired if that employee continued the behavior in question?

The higher up has to know the inappropriate behavior was illegal (as Paterno did). Just referring it to HR, and making no other decisions (especially if the person in question KEEPS SHOWING UP AT THE OFFICE), without any sort of attempt at removing the person from a position where the behavior can continue, is negligent.

[Roy H.]

To kind of sum up the response to multiple people....Person A didn't commit a crime and didn't witness one, but still reported it to his supervisors immediately. That's what supervisors are for. He's a football coach. He isn't their cop, social worker, lead investigator, and all-around McGuyver man too.

This is a complete misrepresentation of Joe Paterno and his relationship with Penn State. While technically his job title was only that of football coach, Joe Paterno was the most powerful individual on the Penn State campus. He was an institution more than the institution itself. He was literally able to get EVERYTHING he wanted during his tenure. There are repeated examples over his decades long career of the administration, the campus police, and even the local police bending the rules in Paterno's favor.

  I didn't follow the story any more than I had to, but I don't think the nature of his relationship with  his "supervisors" changes what he's saying that much. It's not really Joe's job to investigate charges of sexual abuse. If I told a higher up at my company that I saw another employee doing something inappropriate at work (doing drugs, having sex with a co-worker or subordinate or the like) he'd refer the matter to HR. That would probably end his involvement in the matter. Should the person that I told what I saw be fired if that employee continued the behavior in question?

Simply, Paterno KNEW about the events that transpired. He made no effort to get Sandusky removed from his position, or barred from coming to the school. This is tantamount to allowing it to happen.

  Again, I didn't follow this closely, but how did he KNOW exactly what transpired? Did he witness the event? Did the people who he reported it to come back and tell him that the allegations were true? Did he personally investigate the claim and find that the accusation was accurate?

That's a pretty blithe way of rationalizing away a pretty terrible thing.

  Again, I was actively avoiding the story (which was almost like avoiding the details of Clinton's impeachment) but from what I heard it's not like he had first-hand knowledge of the behavior, it's not like he was trying to cover it up, and it's not like he was trying to keep Sandusky from getting punished. All of the statements that I just made could be factually incorrect, but if not I'd say that there are a number of people who should be ahead of Joe on the blame list.

  And, for the record, I'm not a JoePa or Penn State fan, never have been.

If you're unaware of the facts surrounding something as horrific and brutal as serial child rape, why weigh in in the first place?  Being the contrarian is all well and good, but there are probably better examples to use than the JoePa one.  There, one of the most powerful men in America knew of a serial child rapist's actions for a decade, and did little to stop it.  So long as it wasn't in his own back yard any more, he didn't care.  That makes Joe Pa a fairly disgusting human being, and not somebody that I would expect anybody who cares about moral values to defend.

[indeedproceed]

 Again, I was actively avoiding the story (which was almost like avoiding the details of Clinton's impeachment) but from what I heard it's not like he had first-hand knowledge of the behavior, it's not like he was trying to cover it up, and it's not like he was trying to keep Sandusky from getting punished.

Well, he knew as much as he wanted to know. He wanted to keep out of it (in my own opinion of his actions), because it would've ended messily for him no matter what, and I would guess was just hoping it would go away, or at least be handled by someone with some sort of distance from him and his legacy.

It wasn't, and he didn't pursue it further. Doesn't make him a criminal, but it doesn't mean he acted correctly, in a moral context or in the spirit of his position. His dismissal was a Penn State matter, not a legal matter.

All of the statements that I just made could be factually incorrect, but if not I'd say that there are a number of people who should be ahead of Joe on the blame list.

Well, there were. Sandusky for one, the school president for another. McQueary also got let go IIRC.

It wasn't like JoePa fell alone, just no one else was famous enough to be mentioned as falling with him. I don't know what happened to the AD, but I imagine he's not the AD anymore either.

BTW, where is the 'banned from ever coaching college football again' coming from? I hadn't read that anywhere before.

[BballTim]

To kind of sum up the response to multiple people....Person A didn't commit a crime and didn't witness one, but still reported it to his supervisors immediately. That's what supervisors are for. He's a football coach. He isn't their cop, social worker, lead investigator, and all-around McGuyver man too.

This is a complete misrepresentation of Joe Paterno and his relationship with Penn State. While technically his job title was only that of football coach, Joe Paterno was the most powerful individual on the Penn State campus. He was an institution more than the institution itself. He was literally able to get EVERYTHING he wanted during his tenure. There are repeated examples over his decades long career of the administration, the campus police, and even the local police bending the rules in Paterno's favor.

  I didn't follow the story any more than I had to, but I don't think the nature of his relationship with  his "supervisors" changes what he's saying that much. It's not really Joe's job to investigate charges of sexual abuse. If I told a higher up at my company that I saw another employee doing something inappropriate at work (doing drugs, having sex with a co-worker or subordinate or the like) he'd refer the matter to HR. That would probably end his involvement in the matter. Should the person that I told what I saw be fired if that employee continued the behavior in question?

Simply, Paterno KNEW about the events that transpired. He made no effort to get Sandusky removed from his position, or barred from coming to the school. This is tantamount to allowing it to happen.

  Again, I didn't follow this closely, but how did he KNOW exactly what transpired? Did he witness the event? Did the people who he reported it to come back and tell him that the allegations were true? Did he personally investigate the claim and find that the accusation was accurate?

That's a pretty blithe way of rationalizing away a pretty terrible thing.

  Again, I was actively avoiding the story (which was almost like avoiding the details of Clinton's impeachment) but from what I heard it's not like he had first-hand knowledge of the behavior, it's not like he was trying to cover it up, and it's not like he was trying to keep Sandusky from getting punished. All of the statements that I just made could be factually incorrect, but if not I'd say that there are a number of people who should be ahead of Joe on the blame list.

  And, for the record, I'm not a JoePa or Penn State fan, never have been.

If you're unaware of the facts surrounding something as horrific and brutal as serial child rape, why weigh in in the first place?

  Weighing in on a subject when I don't know all the facts surrounding it hardly seperates me from the pack around here, but fine. I'm not that interested in the subject, so I'll stay out of it.

[Eja117]

To kind of sum up the response to multiple people....Person A didn't commit a crime and didn't witness one, but still reported it to his supervisors immediately. That's what supervisors are for. He's a football coach. He isn't their cop, social worker, lead investigator, and all-around McGuyver man too.

That doesn't capture what I was getting at, at all.

JoePa is (or was, since he'll never coach again) a leader of young men. Not professionals, but men barely out of adolescence. The expectations of such a guy (especially a former bastion of honor and integrity like JoePa) are much different than the expectations of a guy like Larry Riley or Joe Lacob, or whoever their human resources person is.

To highlight the differences, its like comparing a high school football coach to a small business owner.

That said, JoePa knew what happened, and if he didn't know what happened in its entirety, its because he willfully chose not to discover the truth, hoping it would go away, or in the least be taken care of by someone else.

And that response, especially from a guy in JoePa's position with so much to lose is completely rational in a legal sense. He did as little as he possibly could have to absolve himself of criminal negligence. But, it fails to pass the moral smell test for a leader of young men, and that's why JoePa should not be allowed to coach anymore. His lack of action helped to enable an environment where these abuses could continue. Not legally, but what's legal and what's right are different things.

Now, let's go look at Monta Ellis. He (at the time of this post) is being accused of passing on lewd and graphic photos (one assumes in the form of text messages) to an adult woman without her consent. We will have to wait to see the severity, but let's even assume it was pretty bad, and happened often.

Someone in the Golden State front office should lose their job, and someone will. Obviously they don't have enough to press criminal charges, so obviously there will be no criminal repercussions.

It doesn't make what Monta Ellis did right, and if this bears out to be true, he should absolutely lose a part of the season. You shouldn't be allowed to harass a woman without consequence.

Monta Ellis may actually have harassed someone. One guy loses their job forever. The other guy we don't know yet.  If the standard for losing your job and being vilified like the new Gaddafi is knowing someone is accused of something, then it has to be against everyone, not just 80 year old men with otherwise rock solid careers. Right?

Well, again you're equating what Ellis did and what JoePa did. I think that's a non-starter.

Let's take out the word "McQueery" and insert "Brady". Then let's take out the word "Paterno" and insert the word "Bill Belichik". Let's take out the word "Curley" and insert the word "Jonathan Kraft".

Now how does WEEI react? And ESPN? And Celtics Blog. Let's see now. Let's think really hard about it. Hmmm. Do you think they'd say Brady and Belichik can never do their jobs again?

I sure as heck hope so.

Someone in the GSW front office should lose their job, but Monta Ellis shouldn't? He should just have to sit out a while?  This is the logic I don't get.

[Eja117]

To kind of sum up the response to multiple people....Person A didn't commit a crime and didn't witness one, but still reported it to his supervisors immediately. That's what supervisors are for. He's a football coach. He isn't their cop, social worker, lead investigator, and all-around McGuyver man too.

This is a complete misrepresentation of Joe Paterno and his relationship with Penn State. While technically his job title was only that of football coach, Joe Paterno was the most powerful individual on the Penn State campus. He was an institution more than the institution itself. He was literally able to get EVERYTHING he wanted during his tenure. There are repeated examples over his decades long career of the administration, the campus police, and even the local police bending the rules in Paterno's favor.

  I didn't follow the story any more than I had to, but I don't think the nature of his relationship with  his "supervisors" changes what he's saying that much. It's not really Joe's job to investigate charges of sexual abuse. If I told a higher up at my company that I saw another employee doing something inappropriate at work (doing drugs, having sex with a co-worker or subordinate or the like) he'd refer the matter to HR. That would probably end his involvement in the matter. Should the person that I told what I saw be fired if that employee continued the behavior in question?

Simply, Paterno KNEW about the events that transpired. He made no effort to get Sandusky removed from his position, or barred from coming to the school. This is tantamount to allowing it to happen.

  Again, I didn't follow this closely, but how did he KNOW exactly what transpired? Did he witness the event? Did the people who he reported it to come back and tell him that the allegations were true? Did he personally investigate the claim and find that the accusation was accurate?

That's a pretty blithe way of rationalizing away a pretty terrible thing.

You mean kinda like "Big deal he was sexting a woman who didn't want to be. She's a grown woman and someone will lose their job and he'll probably sit some games. Problem solved"?