Anonymous wrote:Ya'll are messy.
Start worrying about teacher assignments for your 3rd grader at Janney.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Should a CXO be fired for making non-consensual sexual advances toward a subordinate via text?

If it was unwanted, reported, continued and the club refused to act -- yes.

But that's the thing, according to Tom's own complaint that he sent everyone, it did stop and the club did act (just didn't fire her).

I don’t know — I think the timeline matters here. The February/March dates in his complaint line up with when DCSC started walking back what they originally promised legacy BFC parents. It seems like there could be some retaliation for Tom continuing to push for more support at work.

Also, I’m curious who actually conducted the investigation. Was it an outside party? Because if it was internal, then of course they’d find no wrongdoing.

Promises were made to all DCSC families — and they were kept for legacy DCSC families — but not for NE or legacy BFC families. Pulling back on the third tournament was a real low blow. The optics, at least to me, aren’t great.

Anonymous wrote:Before it arrived in my inbox last night, I received the email and screenshots via a forward from another parent who has never had a child play on a DC soccer team. I wonder who he sent the blast to and in what order.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Should a CXO be fired for making non-consensual sexual advances toward a subordinate via text?

If it was unwanted, reported, continued and the club refused to act -- yes.

But that's the thing, according to Tom's own complaint that he sent everyone, it did stop and the club did act (just didn't fire her).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Should a CXO be fired for making non-consensual sexual advances toward a subordinate via text?

If it was unwanted, reported, continued and the club refused to act -- yes.

Anonymous wrote:Just curious—did you actually read the complaint? This all started over a year ago. And yeah, it’s his account, but I’d assume he has documentation to support it. From what I can tell, he took all the right steps to stop the harassment and protect himself, and the club didn’t take it seriously. They kept putting him in situations he clearly asked to be removed from. On top of that, DCSC didn’t follow through on their promises to the teams and families Tom brought over from BFC.

As I understand it, Tom had a two-year contract with DCSC that ended after this seasonal year. If he was dealing with ongoing harassment and a hostile work environment from his boss, why would he want to stay? DCSC made a money grab and failed to deliver.

Full disclosure—we’re a legacy BFC family. We were sold on better field access and more training opportunities in the NE area. Instead, we got dumped on one of the worst NW fields in the club’s inventory: Ft. Stevens. It’s mostly dirt, pitted, no lights—and not even close to NE. I’ve heard kids have been injured (even one kid breaking a bone) tripping over equipment in the dark, and when parents and coaches pushed for something as basic as more portable lighting, we were told no, because “the board didn’t approve it.”

Then in spring, all club nights were scheduled only at Jellef, despite being told there would be options in both NW and NE. When parents asked for a more central location like Roosevelt, they were shut down again. And then they took away our third tournament. We got one in fall, played in Winterfest, but the promised spring tournament never happened. Tom ended up paying out of pocket to get the Brookland and Petworth teams into a spring tournament—because that’s the kind of guy he is.

What DCSC is doing to his reputation is honestly disgusting. But it’s classic DCSC. I’ve been around youth sports in this city for a long time—my older kids played in other DC and VA clubs—and I was skeptical from the start about this merger. Unfortunately, DCSC is living up to expectations

Anonymous wrote:Should a CXO be fired for making non-consensual sexual advances toward a subordinate via text?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He’s claiming that he was sexually harassed?!? And those text messages are supposed to show that? Lol. The man is desperate.

Just because there isn’t explicit or graphic proof doesn’t mean this isn’t a case of harassment. There are clear allusions to inappropriate behavior, and the environment that was created made the employee uncomfortable—that meets the definition of a hostile work environment.

We have to stop thinking harassment only “counts” if it’s over-the-top or if the victim is a woman. In this case, a male employee was put in an uncomfortable situation by a female boss. That power dynamic matters, and it absolutely shouldn’t be dismissed just because it doesn’t fit the usual narrative.

If someone in a position of authority is making suggestive comments or behaving in a way that crosses boundaries—even subtly—it can seriously affect someone’s ability to feel safe and respected at work. That’s the core issue here.

This shouldn’t be about whether it’s “bad enough” to take seriously. It’s about whether the behavior was inappropriate, whether it made someone feel uncomfortable, and whether it impacted their work environment. In this case, it clearly did.

Anonymous wrote:He’s claiming that he was sexually harassed?!? And those text messages are supposed to show that? Lol. The man is desperate.