Sidwell sued over staff psychologist's affair

[jsteele]

I want to caution everyone regarding how or if they respond to this thread. As many of you know, this controversy has been brought up on DCUM previously. I think it is safe to say that all parties to the conflict are aware of this discussion. It is also quite obvious that the parties are willing to spend vast amounts of money on lawyers. I also am aware that one party is being represented by a public relations firm. Therefore, your assumption should be that anything you post here will be reviewed by someone involved in the court case. As such, be especially careful about comments that are defamatory. I have removed one post already that I felt crossed the boundary. Please do not state "facts" that you are not willing to defend in a court of law. While you have an advantage of posting anonymously, you may not want to test the limits of that anonymity. But, even if your comment doesn't result in you getting sued, it is probably not worth posting it if it will be removed the moment I see it. So, please post responsibly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two scandals at Sidwell in the same year and I thought Landon was the only school in the area with this type of baggage. I'm glad my son is at Montgomery County public.

Me too, but I'm sure this stuff happens in MoCo and other places. Just that those schools aren't particularly newsworthy.

Why bring Landon into this? The middle school boy hook-up list and Huguely? I have never had a connection to Landon but we know enough students and parents there to be very comfortable with the school. Here's a UK article on Sidwell with more info:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1386464/Barack-Obamas-daughters-school-sued-10m-allowing-psychologist-affair-pupils-mother.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Wow. PR nightmare. Sidwell should have paid the guy off and been done with it. If they were shown the emails, they had reason to know. Of course it is outside the scope of his employment probably, but if he had done other similar bad acts before, Sidwell failed to cover its ass on this one.

[Anonymous]

Random question here, but does anyone know Huntington's race? I'm probably totally off here but, the husband's rage seems so scorched earth, I wonder if that is providing some of the crazy fuel behind this.

[Anonymous]

There were no prior bad acts. Huntington was not the best school psychologist, and I think Sidwell is somewhat guilty of keeping this average guy on for so long. I also think they made a mistake in letting him keep his private practice running, but I don't know all the details on that.

There's just too much coziness. I noticed last night that the school's attorney also has a child in the K class. Time to get some outside/independent advice on the board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Random question here, but does anyone know Huntington's race? I'm probably totally off here but, the husband's rage seems so scorched earth, I wonder if that is providing some of the crazy fuel behind this.

Um.. Huh? All parties are Caucasian.

[Anonymous]

Who is to say that the school didn't take actions (such as dismissing Mr. Huntington) and despite these actions, the father still filed the suit?

I would think, from the school's perspective, that there had to be sufficient time to research the facts before dismissing Mr. Huntington, lest they open themselves up to an employment action from him.

I think a year to receive the first information and gather the facts is more than sufficient.

I think the dad in this case, rage and everything else, is the bad actor here.

[Anonymous]

Was the marriage one between a younger wife and older husband? Not that it would explain or justiry anyon'e behavior.

Well, the plaintiff is Arthur G. Newmyer the 3rd.

There is an Arthur G. Newmyer the 4th who was old enough to intern for John McCain in 2001.

http://www.legistorm.com/person/Arthur_G_Newmyer_IV/72095.html


I am not making any assertions (lawyers!), but generally speaking you get those numbers after your name if you are directly descended from the loins of the number preceding your number. ie, generally speaking, father -> son.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Random question here, but does anyone know Huntington's race? I'm probably totally off here but, the husband's rage seems so scorched earth, I wonder if that is providing some of the crazy fuel behind this.

Um.. Huh? All parties are Caucasian.

Ok, I said it was random...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There were no prior bad acts. Huntington was not the best school psychologist, and I think Sidwell is somewhat guilty of keeping this average guy on for so long. I also think they made a mistake in letting him keep his private practice running, but I don't know all the details on that.

There's just too much coziness. I noticed last night that the school's attorney also has a child in the K class. Time to get some outside/independent advice on the board.

Aren't there plenty of good lawyers in town? Why does Sidwell need to have someone with kids in the school? That in itself seems like bad judgment. You need independent advice to run any good enterprise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who is to say that the school didn't take actions (such as dismissing Mr. Huntington) and despite these actions, the father still filed the suit?

I would think, from the school's perspective, that there had to be sufficient time to research the facts before dismissing Mr. Huntington, lest they open themselves up to an employment action from him.

I think a year to receive the first information and gather the facts is more than sufficient.

I think the dad in this case, rage and everything else, is the bad actor here.

The dad seems nuts, but Huntington seems immature, sex-charged and really, really reckless. The mother seems incompetent. I feel sorry for the Newmyer kid and the Huntington kid. They have no competent adults in their lives.

[Anonymous]

sorry Jeff, my bad, I really should know better. I was too swept up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The dad seems nuts, but Huntington seems immature, sex-charged and really, really reckless. The mother seems incompetent. I feel sorry for the Newmyer kid and the Huntington kid. They have no competent adults in their lives.

9:58 here, I agree with you, but of all the players here, the dad is the one who has taken a private family matter and made it an international story, at the expense of his 6 (?) year old daughter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:sorry Jeff, my bad, I really should know better. I was too swept up.

Hmm, I thought it was one of my posts Jeff deleted and I couldn't figure out why because I didn't add any new information -- just commented on the commentary and not in a nasty way. So I guessed that the problem must have been the absence of qualifiers like "alleged" or "judging from the complaint".

Not aggrieved (or particularly invested in this thread/incident) -- just perplexed as to what the boundaries are.

[Anonymous]

All of the adults involved appear to be thinking of themselves first and their children last, if at all. What is not at all clear is whether Huntington had a professional relationship with the daughter or the mother - according to the story in today's Washington Post the mother denies that this was the case. If he did not - if his professional work was confined to Middle School students and his relationship with the mother/child was as a "friend" rather than as a psychologist - I can't see this lawsuit going anywhere.

[Anonymous]

This is a pretty classic case of respondeat superior - where the conduct of the employee can be imputed on the employer. The main issue is whether the improper conduct of the employee ocurred within the scope of employment. I don't know if its a slam dunk case, but certainly there is enough to survive a motion to dismiss. It's pretty obvious this will settle quickly. It's surprising that Sidwell didn't put a stop to this immediatley. The administartors who knew and did nothing should go quietly into that good night. Hello, Fleischman Hillard types... and welcome to the Thunderdome!