Professor fired for having sexual relationships with two students must be reinstated, court rules

  • 📰 Newsweek
  • ⏱ Reading Time:
  • 48 sec. here
  • 2 min. at publisher
  • 📊 Quality Score:
  • News: 23%
  • Publisher: 52%

Law Law Headlines News

Law Law Latest News,Law Law Headlines

The court didn't condone his behavior, but ruled that he didn't violate any university policies.

A Pennsylvania court ruled Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania Professor John Barrett must be reinstated after he was fired for having sexual relationships with two students.

“Thus, Grievant’s conduct, as characterized by the arbitrator, does not implicate the public policy against sexual harassment … Although we reach this conclusion today, we are in no way ignoring Grievant’s appalling lack of judgment, especially as one who once held a position of trust for Complainant,” the ruling said.

The student, who was not named, was in one of Barrett’s classes in spring 2015 and the two began a romantic relationship the subsequent fall semester. Their relationship continued until June 2016. According to the ruling, the student claimed to have woken up to Barrett touching her while sleeping in his home on multiple occasions.

In his termination letter, Bloomsburg University President David Soltz cited Barrett’s “lack of professional judgment” in having a sexual relationship with the two students, which the school found to be in violation of the university’s sexual harassment and discrimination policies.

 

Thank you for your comment. Your comment will be published after being reviewed.
Please try again later.
We have summarized this news so that you can read it quickly. If you are interested in the news, you can read the full text here. Read more:

 /  🏆 468. in LAW

Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines

Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.

Second U.S. appeals court rules Trump cannot end protections for 'Dreamers'The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, said in its ruling that the 2017 rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program violated administrative law because the policy change was not adequately explained. The ruling reversed a decision by a federal court So the judges think it's OK for Obama to rule by fiat and not OK when Trump does the same thing? Deep State. We will pay for 2008 for years and years and years. 🙄 The best way to write stupid stories and make stupid comments on this subject is to ignore the key issue: the Administrative Procedure Act. But you be you.
Source: YahooNews - 🏆 380. / 59 Read more »

U.S. Supreme Court tosses ruling against Merck on Fosamax osteoporosis drugSupreme Court rules for Merck on claims it failed to warn about fracture risk from osteoporosis drug Fosamax Uh,oh.., This list could go on and on.... EndBigPharma Reclassify does the same... increase femur fractures.
Source: Reuters - 🏆 2. / 97 Read more »

Supreme Court rules in favor of Native American rights in Wyoming hunting caseIn a 5-4 decision in favor of a Wyoming Native American tribe, the US Supreme Court ruled that a 19th-century treaty between the tribe and the state did not expire when Wyoming became a state Fake news MAJOR!! Impeach45 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
Source: CNN - 🏆 4. / 95 Read more »