Civil rights office rules district retaliated against Hicks

By MIKE JAMES - The Independent

LLOYD March 28, 2008 11:29 pm

— The Greenup County School District retaliated against former basketball coach Jim Hicks after he filed a sexual harassment complaint and dragged its feet in investigating the complaint, according to documents issued by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights.
However, the civil rights office said there wasn’t enough evidence to support Hicks’ claim that a female co-worker sexually harassed him, according to the documents.
The findings will play a big role in a lawsuit Hicks filed against the district, said his attorney, David O. Welch. “Our position is that it greatly supports our position in the suit that he was suspended and fired in retaliation for other claims he has made,” Welch said.
According to the documents, Hicks told Superintendent John Younce in December 2006 that a co-worker, identified only by the initials “KS”, made “verbal sexual advances” to him, and told Younce the co-worker had sent sexually harassing e-mails to four others.
Younce told Hicks to submit a written complaint, which he did later the same month. In January 2007 Younce told Hicks his complaint didn’t prove harassment had taken place.
Hicks appealed the decision but the district mishandled the appeal, the OCR found.
The OCR found that the district made only a superficial inquiry into Hicks’ allegations and that the process was ineffective.
The OCR found that the district retaliated against Hicks in part because of his previous complaints. Those included rumors and allegations of illegal recruiting of basketball players and a dispute between Hicks and an assistant coach, identified in the documents as “JS.”
“JS” appears to be Jason Smith, who was assistant coach at the time and completed the most recent basketball season as interim head coach.
Also, “KS” in the documents is identified as the wife of “JS.”
Younce suspended Hicks from his coaching position in January 2007 and fired him in February.
Those actions support the retaliation contention, Welch said. “Not only did they not prove they didn’t retaliate, but there was evidence that they did.”
Hicks will use the findings in his suit claiming he was fired “without cause and in retaliation for exercising his rights and obligations as coach,” he said.
Younce said Friday he could not comment because he had not seen the ruling.