The University of Kentucky filed a motion to dismiss four counts of a lawsuit accusing the school of negligence that enabled former swim coach Lars Jorgensen to sexually assault two former assistants.
Attorneys for UK argued that the university has sovereign immunity as a state institution, the same doctrine that prevents people from suing the U.S. government in many situations. UK also claimed it should avoid culpability for “vicarious liability” related to Jorgensen’s actions because they did not fall within the scope of his employment.
Two former Wildcat swimmers filed a lawsuit in April alleging that UK’s athletic department was complicit in allowing Jorgensen to “foster a toxic, sexually hostile environment within the swim program and to prey on, sexually harass, and commit horrific sexual assaults and violent rapes against young female coaches and collegiate athletes who were reliant on him.” Some of the alleged abuse occurred at team parties that Jorgensen hosted at his house.
The 53-year-old Jorgensen resigned last summer amid an investigation after a decade in Lexington, receiving a $75,000 settlement and foregoing the rest of the $402,500 left on his contract through the 2024-25 season. He appeared in SafeSport’s disciplinary database in November for unspecified allegations of misconduct.
Former Kentucky swim coach Gary Conelly and current athletic director Mitch Barnhart are also named as defendants in the lawsuit along with Jorgensen and the university for their “deliberate indifference.” Kentucky’s Title IX office has reportedly known since 2019 about accusations that Jorgensen had been in a relationship with one of his swimmers at Toledo and sexually assaulted a staff member at Kentucky. In the lawsuit, former members of the Wildcats program say they were “vigorously discouraged” by a Title IX officer from reporting Jorgensen’s abuse.
In UK’s most recent response, attorneys claim the university acted in good faith, without wrongful intent, and within its authority once complaints were brought. Last week, when the Wildcats were hit with two years of probation for Level II training violations under Jorgensen, UK president Eli Capilouto said the “most serious of the allegations” only became known when the lawsuit was filed.
In 2014, a former Toledo softball coach accused Jorgensen of having a long-term romance with a swimmer, hiring her as an assistant coach, and ultimately promoting her to head coach in a Title IX lawsuit where he was one of three examples of male head coaches and administrators who “committed much more egregious offenses” without being fired. Conelly told The Athletic that he looked into that situation and said Jorgensen only started dating her after she stopped swimming.
“This is not an uncommon occurrence that there is a relationship between a coach and an ex-swimmer,” said Conelly, who also filed a separate motion to dismiss his involvement in the case because he left Kentucky months after Jorgensen was hired.
Jorgensen has denied the allegations, but his attorney has yet to file a response in U.S. District Court in Lexington.
Wait, did his lawyer really say that coaches and ex swimmers commonly get into relationships? Are they referring to all coaches, or just the ones on the safe sport banned list?
Either way, that is a terrible thing to use as a defense.
His lawyer has said a lot of questionable things.
Didn’t this same kind of problem end poorly for the University of Maryland?
Please tell me Lars has not been brought on to another pool deck either club or college?
Not that I know of.
He wouldn’t be able to go on deck at a club as he’s currently suspended by SafeSport.
I guess he could in theory go on deck at a college program, but between this issue and his NCAA compliance issues…I don’t think even the dumbest colleges would take that on. I mean, I know there’s cynicism about colleges taking on problem coaches if they think it could help them win…but problems on deck and off deck is a double whammy for a swim program that most ADs wouldn’t go near.
That being said, if anybody were to get wind of him on deck somewhere, we would for sure love to know that so we can investigate further, so please let us… Read more »
Here’s a good article/summary of sovereign immunity by state.
https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/STATE-SOVEREIGN-IMMUNITY-AND-TORT-LIABILITY-CHART.pdf
So, just to make sure it is clear, their defense is that there was a lack of institutional control? This may not end how they want it to end.
“UK argued that the university has sovereign immunity as a state institution”
Has that held up at all in terms of lawsuits such as this?
SAD
It happens pretty frequently. Generally, state governments are immune from suit, but there are exceptions that often require you to jump through several hoops pretty quickly. For example, states have things called tort claims acts, which waive sovereign immunity, but come with hurdles. Usually, you have just 90 days to put the state government on notice that you are going to sue, and then there are several extra steps. If you fail to comply with the tort claims act, sovereign immunity kicks back in. This gets even more complicated when, as in this case, federal laws and federal courts are involved. There are exceptions to exceptions and complicated constitutional doctrines—it gets convoluted fast. So yes, state governments frequently get otherwise… Read more »
Thanks!
State governments maybe, but to extend that to a university seems like a huge reach to me, as well as being a dangerous precedent. If that argument is accepted, then all public universities would be free from any responsibilities to protect students from abuse, at least from a civil law standpoint. Private universities on the other hand would not be. That doesn’t strike me as a tenable outcome.
Right or wrong, it’s nothing new. It’s been the law since the before the revolution. You can still sue the state and public universities. The extra hoops are not onerous for a minimally competent lawyer—if you’re ever wronged by a government body, contact one soon. Also, there are good things about public universities being considered “the state.” For example, it extends 1st Amendment rights. Private universities can kick out students and fire faculty for saying things the school doesn’t like*, but public schools are much more restricted because they are restrained by the constitution.
*This is not completely true because most private universities accept money from the federal government, and that money comes with strings attached that protect students… Read more »