Monta Ellis accused of Sexual Harassment

[Evantime34]

So leeeeettt me see if I understand this. The severity is worse in one case because it was children (and over a longer period of time), and perhaps because it was a public university, rather than a private business.

Soooooo.....you should get punished less for victimizing/harassing a grown woman and covering it up, than for hurting kids and covering it up. I'll go with harassment isn't as bad as hurting someone, but a cover up is a cover up right? I'm fine with Ellis getting in way less trouble than Sandusky. But why should the people that enabled/covered up get in less trouble than the other guy who looked the other way? Because he's covering up a less bad, but still bad thing?

A wide spread, systematic cover up of a heinous crime that took place over several years and denied the victims (in that case, children) a voice is worse than the cover up of the sexual harassment of a grown woman, yes.  Both are wrong, but one is more wrong.

Also, we don't know yet what the Warriors knew, or even if the allegations are true.  In the Penn State case, multiple powerful members of the administration knew what was going on, and we have every reason in the world to believe that something very, very inappropriate occurred.

right but JoePa brought it to his supervisors the next day, which isn't exactly the act of a conspirator..and now then they said he can never coach ever again, without more evidence than the grand jury testimony. So who's a worse guy? A guy that reports something immediately or a guy actually accused of actually victimizing someone like...say...Monta Ellis? Who will get punished worse?

Person A:  We don't know the allegations, but is presumed to have sent lewd photos to an adult woman that made her very uncomfortable; or

Person B:  Iconic and extremely power community leader who knew a close personal friend was raping children, but did little about it -- and nothing about it once it was clear a cover up was going on -- despite knowing that that friend was repeatedly in continued contact with young children?

Both are pretty sleazy, and frankly, both should lose their jobs and have their contracts voided, if true.  However, if I had to choose only one to get a greater punishment, it would be Person B.  In his position, he had a duty to protect the innocent, and he violated the public trust to preserve his meal ticket.

How long did Brett Favre get suspended after sending pictures of his business to Jenn Sterger?

[Roy H.]

So leeeeettt me see if I understand this. The severity is worse in one case because it was children (and over a longer period of time), and perhaps because it was a public university, rather than a private business.

Soooooo.....you should get punished less for victimizing/harassing a grown woman and covering it up, than for hurting kids and covering it up. I'll go with harassment isn't as bad as hurting someone, but a cover up is a cover up right? I'm fine with Ellis getting in way less trouble than Sandusky. But why should the people that enabled/covered up get in less trouble than the other guy who looked the other way? Because he's covering up a less bad, but still bad thing?

A wide spread, systematic cover up of a heinous crime that took place over several years and denied the victims (in that case, children) a voice is worse than the cover up of the sexual harassment of a grown woman, yes.  Both are wrong, but one is more wrong.

Also, we don't know yet what the Warriors knew, or even if the allegations are true.  In the Penn State case, multiple powerful members of the administration knew what was going on, and we have every reason in the world to believe that something very, very inappropriate occurred.

right but JoePa brought it to his supervisors the next day, which isn't exactly the act of a conspirator..and now then they said he can never coach ever again, without more evidence than the grand jury testimony. So who's a worse guy? A guy that reports something immediately or a guy actually accused of actually victimizing someone like...say...Monta Ellis? Who will get punished worse?

Person A:  We don't know the allegations, but is presumed to have sent lewd photos to an adult woman that made her very uncomfortable; or

Person B:  Iconic and extremely power community leader who knew a close personal friend was raping children, but did little about it -- and nothing about it once it was clear a cover up was going on -- despite knowing that that friend was repeatedly in continued contact with young children?

Both are pretty sleazy, and frankly, both should lose their jobs and have their contracts voided, if true.  However, if I had to choose only one to get a greater punishment, it would be Person B.  In his position, he had a duty to protect the innocent, and he violated the public trust to preserve his meal ticket.

How long did Brett Favre get suspended after sending pictures of his business to Jenn Sterger?

No suspension.  The league couldn't prove that Favre sent the texts.  They fined him $50k for failing to cooperate with their investigation.  I don't think Sterger pursued a civil suit.

[mgent]

Didn't World Peace allegedly do the same thing (and not get in trouble)?

[ACF]

Didn't World Peace allegedly do the same thing (and not get in trouble)?

Aliens live by different rules.

[Finkelskyhook]

http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/217709/Ellis_Warriors_Accused_Of_Sexual_Harassment

Here we go, another trouble making gold digger

I would tend to agree with that assumption if Gloria Allred was representing her and she was shamelessly parading herself around the trajedy TV circuit.

[indeedproceed]

So leeeeettt me see if I understand this. The severity is worse in one case because it was children (and over a longer period of time), and perhaps because it was a public university, rather than a private business.

Soooooo.....you should get punished less for victimizing/harassing a grown woman and covering it up, than for hurting kids and covering it up. I'll go with harassment isn't as bad as hurting someone, but a cover up is a cover up right? I'm fine with Ellis getting in way less trouble than Sandusky. But why should the people that enabled/covered up get in less trouble than the other guy who looked the other way? Because he's covering up a less bad, but still bad thing?

Yep. Nailed it.

[Evantime34]

So leeeeettt me see if I understand this. The severity is worse in one case because it was children (and over a longer period of time), and perhaps because it was a public university, rather than a private business.

Soooooo.....you should get punished less for victimizing/harassing a grown woman and covering it up, than for hurting kids and covering it up. I'll go with harassment isn't as bad as hurting someone, but a cover up is a cover up right? I'm fine with Ellis getting in way less trouble than Sandusky. But why should the people that enabled/covered up get in less trouble than the other guy who looked the other way? Because he's covering up a less bad, but still bad thing?

A wide spread, systematic cover up of a heinous crime that took place over several years and denied the victims (in that case, children) a voice is worse than the cover up of the sexual harassment of a grown woman, yes.  Both are wrong, but one is more wrong.

Also, we don't know yet what the Warriors knew, or even if the allegations are true.  In the Penn State case, multiple powerful members of the administration knew what was going on, and we have every reason in the world to believe that something very, very inappropriate occurred.

right but JoePa brought it to his supervisors the next day, which isn't exactly the act of a conspirator..and now then they said he can never coach ever again, without more evidence than the grand jury testimony. So who's a worse guy? A guy that reports something immediately or a guy actually accused of actually victimizing someone like...say...Monta Ellis? Who will get punished worse?

Person A:  We don't know the allegations, but is presumed to have sent lewd photos to an adult woman that made her very uncomfortable; or

Person B:  Iconic and extremely power community leader who knew a close personal friend was raping children, but did little about it -- and nothing about it once it was clear a cover up was going on -- despite knowing that that friend was repeatedly in continued contact with young children?

Both are pretty sleazy, and frankly, both should lose their jobs and have their contracts voided, if true.  However, if I had to choose only one to get a greater punishment, it would be Person B.  In his position, he had a duty to protect the innocent, and he violated the public trust to preserve his meal ticket.

How long did Brett Favre get suspended after sending pictures of his business to Jenn Sterger?

No suspension.  The league couldn't prove that Favre sent the texts.  They fined him $50k for failing to cooperate with their investigation.  I don't think Sterger pursued a civil suit.

I feel like it's a tough situation for someone famous. I bet this is not the first time he has tried this tactic to entice a female and I doubt he would have done it again if it did not work the first time. I bet he has done this numerous time resulting in the desired effect.

[RyNye]

right but JoePa brought it to his supervisors the next day, which isn't exactly the act of a conspirator..and now then they said he can never coach ever again, without more evidence than the grand jury testimony.

Yeah, "only" a grand jury testimony. Which is far more than what we have for what Ellis did. In fact, right now we have exactly 0 evidence for Ellis even doing anything wrong. So why on Earth if you for some bizarre reason think the grand jury testimony wasn't enough to slap Paterno with guilt, do you think that Ellis should be considered guilty on SIGNIFICANTLY LESS evidence?

Do you not see the inherent contradiction in your stance?

[indeedproceed]

right but JoePa brought it to his supervisors the next day, which isn't exactly the act of a conspirator..and now then they said he can never coach ever again, without more evidence than the grand jury testimony.

Well A) JoePa was never going to coach again anyways. B) JoePa, as the head of a collegiate football program, has a little more obligation when one of his subordinates commits systematic habitual rape actually in his facility. What JoePa did wasn't cool. C) This doesn't make Monta Ellis a 'good guy', and it doesn't make Larry Wallace (is he even the GM in GSW anymore?) a 'good guy'. If the accusations against Ellis are true (which is pure speculation at this point whether or not his alleged texts were consensual or not), neither him or the Warriors front office will look very pretty and someone will absolutely lose their job.

So who's a worse guy? A guy that reports something immediately or a guy actually accused of actually victimizing someone like...say...Monta Ellis? Who will get punished worse?

JoePa didn't face any criminal charges, right? No civil charges either? He allowed child-rape that occurred under his house to go unpunished, he shouldn't be allowed oversight of young amateur athletes whose care and trust was given to him by their parents ever again. I mean, that's not really much of a stretch, right?

[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.

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?

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?

[guava_wrench]

I like Ellis alot. He doesnt seem like a guy that would cheat on his wife..

Lots of guys who "don't seem like the type" to cheat on their wife in fact do cheat on their wives.  It's very hard to judge somebody's character based upon their public facade. 

TP

[guava_wrench]

Have followed this story, using a lot of Twitter links provided at HoopsHype.  This will come across really bad for Ellis and Golden State.  It appears the front office knew of this and a cover-up might have taken place.  This lawyer is going to take this pretty far...  We don't know all the details, but those coming out will paint Ellis in a VERY bad light... A picture says a thousand words, and then some.

If they knew about it then following the WEEI precedent from the Paterno thing Ellis can never play again and the coach can never coach again

Not to compare degrees of bad acts, but I do think there's a difference in kind between sending somebody sexually explicit photos and raping a child.  Both are wrong and the perpetrators should be punished, but one is substantially more wrong.

Agreed.

I don't think these two cases are even close. What Ellis did is serious because he is in a position of power within the organization as a star player and he can make it difficult for the woman employees to be comfortable at work. That is unacceptable. But this is nowhere in the ballpark of sexual assault or rape.

I usually don't find it surprising if scorers of Ellis's type have over-inflated egos about how much women want them. Those kinds of scorers need to be a little out of touch with the concept of failing.

[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.

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.

[Roy H.]

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.

[RyNye]

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.

It's like saying Karl Rove was JUST an advisor. It completely undermines his significance to the institution and the events 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.