"Some members of the Celtics organization first became aware of the relationship in July, sources said. At that time, team leadership was led to believe by both parties that the relationship was consensual. But sources said that the woman recently accused Udoka of making unwanted comments toward her — leading the team to launch a set of internal interviews."
The Celtics have suspended coach Ime Udoka for the entirety of the 2022-23 season for violations of team policies, the franchise announced Thursday. The team added in a statement that “a decision about his future with the Cel...
Well, it's coming out now that the coach allegedly made threatening or harassing statements to the woman after she broke off the relationship.
Whether it's true or not, it's another prime example of why organizations prohibit this. Forces them to get involved in a "he said / she said" that can lead to lawsuits, PR disaster, etc...
Well, it's coming out now that the coach allegedly made threatening or harassing statements to the woman after she broke off the relationship.
Which pretty much answers all of the posts on here wondering why such a relationship should be of any concern to the employer and should be avoided by the employees.
I don't understand why anybody is comfortable with their employer telling them who they can and cannot have a sexual relationship with.
I don’t understand why anybody is comfortable with telling an employer they can’t fire an employee that is hurting their brand, their image, and violating their company policies.
“I might be a sociopath” was said on letsrun today in a thread about basketball.
Yeah well I probably am not a sociopath but the dude was so convinced that I care about the subject. I only care because the “me too” movement has now jumped the shark but I am a detached observer.
You are quite detached indeed if you think this is the "me too" movement gone rogue.
The coach isn’t doing anything to fight the suspension. Pretty much tells you all you need to know.
This is time to negotiate a settlement. They'll both "part ways" assuming he isn't fired.
Those questioning the Celtics actions even before the information which was revealed this morning really have no clue as to corporate policies and how they are enforced today.
Obviously, the OP has never been forced into a Safesport Class.
Someone down voted me, so I have to explain myself. According to Safesport training, it is not possible for this coach to have a consensual relationship with this inferior employee because of the imbalance of power (she would have been unable to refuse his advances):
b. Inability to Refuse - An Inability to Refuse exists when effective Consent cannot be given because of the use of Coercion, Force, Intimidation, or creating or misusing a Power Imbalance.
ii. Forms of Sexual Misconduct – A Covered Individual shall not engage in any form of sexual misconduct, including Bullying Behaviors or Hazing of a sexual nature. Sexual misconduct offenses include: 1. Sexual Conduct (or attempts to commit the same), without Consent. 2. Sexual Conduct (or attempts to commit the same), where there is a Power Imbalance, regardless of purported Consent.
Basically, in the eyes of Safesport, he is a rapist.
"Some members of the Celtics organization first became aware of the relationship in July, sources said. At that time, team leadership was led to believe by both parties that the relationship was consensual. But sources said that the woman recently accused Udoka of making unwanted comments toward her — leading the team to launch a set of internal interviews."
It was obvious that there was more to this story. Then you have the coach they replaced him with for this year having at least two arrests in his background, for aggravated assault and domestic battery, although both were over a decade ago.
Affairs with subordinates are off-limits and a violation of company policy for every large organization. And in this case a major distraction for the team. If they wanted to carry on one of them should have left the Celtics first.
But suspending him for a year?
It is so stupid. Who gets suspended from a job, essentially when you are CEO?
He should either be fired or reprimanded but suspending him just seems pointless.
If you violate our rules, you'll get suspended a year?
Affairs with subordinates are off-limits and a violation of company policy for every large organization. And in this case a major distraction for the team. If they wanted to carry on one of them should have left the Celtics first.
But suspending him for a year?
It is so stupid. Who gets suspended from a job, essentially when you are CEO?
He should either be fired or reprimanded but suspending him just seems pointless.
If you violate our rules, you'll get suspended a year?
Yes you are correct because suspending him for a year is a bigger distraction than firing him and it implies that he is in the penalty box and that he needs to reform his ways, which sounds more like the morality police than organizational efficacy at play here.
Affairs with subordinates are off-limits and a violation of company policy for every large organization. And in this case a major distraction for the team. If they wanted to carry on one of them should have left the Celtics first.
But suspending him for a year?
It is so stupid. Who gets suspended from a job, essentially when you are CEO?
He should either be fired or reprimanded but suspending him just seems pointless.
If you violate our rules, you'll get suspended a year?
It seems like the Celtics are trying to hedge their bets. They can't get away with just reprimanding him, given the seriousness of the violation. But now, if they have a great year with an assistant coach at the helm they can part ways with Udoka at the end of his suspension. But if the team has a bad season they can bring him back.
There are really no good options for anyone. The coach knew the rules and he put the team in this position.
What the hell did he do? Ime Udoka what is going on there?
He knowingly broke the corporations rules. He should've been fired immediately! No different than if I work at Walmart and broke their rules knowing it could cost me my job--same thing. If you don't like that reason then try this one: Massachusetts is an at will state! The Celtics can fire anyone for any reason at any time!!!! Quit your crying its the law. If he doesn't like it or thinks he was unfairly treated he can seek legal counsel. That's how this works. Consent means jacksh1t in this case--completely irrelevant. He knew what he was doing and it cost him. Let him take his punishment like an adult.
What the hell did he do? Ime Udoka what is going on there?
He knowingly broke the corporations rules. He should've been fired immediately! No different than if I work at Walmart and broke their rules knowing it could cost me my job--same thing. If you don't like that reason then try this one: Massachusetts is an at will state! The Celtics can fire anyone for any reason at any time!!!! Quit your crying its the law. If he doesn't like it or thinks he was unfairly treated he can seek legal counsel. That's how this works. Consent means jacksh1t in this case--completely irrelevant. He knew what he was doing and it cost him. Let him take his punishment like an adult.
Why do some of you impute traits to others without be evidence? Who is crying? When I posted the above I was unaware of what the rationale was for suspending the coach. I have more data now. Even if I question the organization’s response this is no reason to assume anyone is crying over this. Some of you appear to have anger management issues.
A coach might be a person in a position of authority to help/hurt the career of the staffer. In most organizations a relationship between the two puts the person on shaky ground especially if the organization has a code of conduct that covers this situation. If the coach actually did promote (or threaten to demote) the staffer or give the staffer special privileges (parking space, access to management rest room or whatever) that would be a no-brainer for the organization to levy punishment.
He knowingly broke the corporations rules. He should've been fired immediately! No different than if I work at Walmart and broke their rules knowing it could cost me my job--same thing. If you don't like that reason then try this one: Massachusetts is an at will state! The Celtics can fire anyone for any reason at any time!!!! Quit your crying its the law. If he doesn't like it or thinks he was unfairly treated he can seek legal counsel. That's how this works. Consent means jacksh1t in this case--completely irrelevant. He knew what he was doing and it cost him. Let him take his punishment like an adult.
Why do some of you impute traits to others without be evidence? Who is crying? When I posted the above I was unaware of what the rationale was for suspending the coach. I have more data now. Even if I question the organization’s response this is no reason to assume anyone is crying over this. Some of you appear to have anger management issues.
Holy sh1t snowflake! For my comment to elicit this kind of response from you--makes it look like you're crying. To post a basketball coach question on a running forum makes it look like you're crying. Yes, some people do have anger issues, which is completely irrelevant, but the fact that you brought it up--makes you look like you're--you guessed it.
