DC Stoddert was forced to settle with African American coaches who were wrongfully terminated simultaneously. DC Stoddert settled for hundreds of thousands of dollars. As a Glover Park Family it’s incredibly frustrating to see our club continue to not get it right. Name change, new logo, new board of directors, new leadership, and it still isn’t working. My kids haven’t been in the club for a while but this isn’t surprising to see. The egos involved here are at an all time high and it’s all at the expense of the players.

Anonymous wrote:Just catching up on all of this and honestly, not surprised. It feels like every year there’s another lawsuit or major issue coming out of this club. Different reasons, same pattern.

At this point, if you’re a lawyer, DCSC must be a great business partner, repeat clients with a steady flow of new cases. But for DCSC families, it’s exhausting. When the headlines keep changing but the leadership stays the same, that says a lot.

Genuinely curious because I only came to this board for this harassment claim that got spammed into my inbox and only started commenting because someone was wrong on the internet (which is the worst reason to post but...), what other lawsuits has DCSC been involved in? I have had a kid playing since 2020 but I haven't heard a thing (or had it impact me in anyway). However, I can't say I am really "in the know" of the inner workings of the club.

Just catching up on all of this and honestly, not surprised. It feels like every year there’s another lawsuit or major issue coming out of this club. Different reasons, same pattern.

At this point, if you’re a lawyer, DCSC must be a great business partner, repeat clients with a steady flow of new cases. But for DCSC families, it’s exhausting. When the headlines keep changing but the leadership stays the same, that says a lot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are some important questions that deserve answers and for those trying to downplay the situation, we all know who you are. That alone speaks volumes about the leadership at DCSC:

1) Was it appropriate for a CXO to initiate repeated personal or intimate communication with a subordinate, especially after that subordinate clearly declined?

2) In any professional environment, wouldn’t such behavior typically lead to disciplinary action or even termination, given the clear power imbalance and ethical concerns?

3) Why has the Executive Director consistently defended and protected the CXO, despite multiple red flags and concerns raised internally?

4) Why has the board remained silent instead of being transparent with the families who placed their trust in this club?

5) If the roles were reversed, would a male employee have been treated the same way or held to a different standard?

6) If leadership failed to address this openly, is it really wrong for someone to defend their reputation when no one else is willing to speak up?

As a lawyer, wholly disconnected from DCSC leadership, there are two issues with this line of questioning:

1) individual sexual harassment or hostile work environment claims are rarely publicized to customers of the company and in fact they may not be able to do so for legal reasons.
2) most sexual harassment and hostile work environment claims (whether involving a male or female) do not result in termination of the employee even if validated after internal or external investigation.

Thank you for your legal perspective, but with all due respect, this isn’t just a legal issue, it’s also a leadership, ethical, and community trust issue.

1) While it’s true that legal constraints often limit public disclosure, transparency isn’t about revealing every detail of an investigation, it’s about acknowledging that something serious occurred and assuring families that it was handled appropriately. In a youth organization, silence and vague responses only fuel more distrust.

2) The fact that many sexual harassment cases don’t lead to termination isn’t justification, it’s a problem. Especially when the accused is in a position of power and the organization chooses to protect leadership over accountability. That’s how toxic workplace cultures persist.

This isn’t about legal technicalities, it’s about the example being set for staff, players, and families. And right now, the lack of accountability speaks louder than any policy.

DP. You’re trying to turn this into a much larger thing. How did this alleged harassment-which happened last year—impact the players and families? I’m willing to bet you didn’t even know about any of this until TW sent emails to families. So I’m genuinely curious to hear your answer. Like it or not, when an employee makes a claim of harassment, it does become a legal issue and is governed by the law. There is pending litigation so the parties really shouldn’t be speaking out on it at all. It was really poor form for TW to have sent that email to all the travel families.

When leadership at a youth organization is involved in serious allegations, especially those involving abuse of power, it absolutely becomes relevant to families. It’s not just about the original incident; it’s about the way the organization chooses to handle it.

The concern isn’t just legal, it’s cultural. If a director felt compelled to go public, it suggests they felt unheard or unsupported internally. That reflects a breakdown in leadership, trust, and accountability. And when those in power are protected without transparency, families start asking: what else is being hidden?

Even if the incident didn’t directly involve players, the environment created by leadership decisions does impact the club as a whole. Silence doesn’t build trust, transparency does.

Anonymous wrote:Maybe I'm just jaded because I'm a lawyer who won't be affected either way but, based on Tom's version, I would characterize DCSC's response as "fine" based on the circumstances even if it could have been improved in certain ways. But even in the perfect version of the response, I don't see why I would have had hear about it.

Thank you for the considered post. Summarizes my thoughts well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are some important questions that deserve answers and for those trying to downplay the situation, we all know who you are. That alone speaks volumes about the leadership at DCSC:

1) Was it appropriate for a CXO to initiate repeated personal or intimate communication with a subordinate, especially after that subordinate clearly declined?

2) In any professional environment, wouldn’t such behavior typically lead to disciplinary action or even termination, given the clear power imbalance and ethical concerns?

3) Why has the Executive Director consistently defended and protected the CXO, despite multiple red flags and concerns raised internally?

4) Why has the board remained silent instead of being transparent with the families who placed their trust in this club?

5) If the roles were reversed, would a male employee have been treated the same way or held to a different standard?

6) If leadership failed to address this openly, is it really wrong for someone to defend their reputation when no one else is willing to speak up?

As a lawyer, wholly disconnected from DCSC leadership, there are two issues with this line of questioning:

1) individual sexual harassment or hostile work environment claims are rarely publicized to customers of the company and in fact they may not be able to do so for legal reasons.
2) most sexual harassment and hostile work environment claims (whether involving a male or female) do not result in termination of the employee even if validated after internal or external investigation.

Thank you for your legal perspective, but with all due respect, this isn’t just a legal issue, it’s also a leadership, ethical, and community trust issue.

1) While it’s true that legal constraints often limit public disclosure, transparency isn’t about revealing every detail of an investigation, it’s about acknowledging that something serious occurred and assuring families that it was handled appropriately. In a youth organization, silence and vague responses only fuel more distrust.

2) The fact that many sexual harassment cases don’t lead to termination isn’t justification, it’s a problem. Especially when the accused is in a position of power and the organization chooses to protect leadership over accountability. That’s how toxic workplace cultures persist.

This isn’t about legal technicalities, it’s about the example being set for staff, players, and families. And right now, the lack of accountability speaks louder than any policy.

DP. You’re trying to turn this into a much larger thing. How did this alleged harassment-which happened last year—impact the players and families? I’m willing to bet you didn’t even know about any of this until TW sent emails to families. So I’m genuinely curious to hear your answer. Like it or not, when an employee makes a claim of harassment, it does become a legal issue and is governed by the law. There is pending litigation so the parties really shouldn’t be speaking out on it at all. It was really poor form for TW to have sent that email to all the travel families.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are some important questions that deserve answers and for those trying to downplay the situation, we all know who you are. That alone speaks volumes about the leadership at DCSC:

1) Was it appropriate for a CXO to initiate repeated personal or intimate communication with a subordinate, especially after that subordinate clearly declined?

2) In any professional environment, wouldn’t such behavior typically lead to disciplinary action or even termination, given the clear power imbalance and ethical concerns?

3) Why has the Executive Director consistently defended and protected the CXO, despite multiple red flags and concerns raised internally?

4) Why has the board remained silent instead of being transparent with the families who placed their trust in this club?

5) If the roles were reversed, would a male employee have been treated the same way or held to a different standard?

6) If leadership failed to address this openly, is it really wrong for someone to defend their reputation when no one else is willing to speak up?

As a lawyer, wholly disconnected from DCSC leadership, there are two issues with this line of questioning:

1) individual sexual harassment or hostile work environment claims are rarely publicized to customers of the company and in fact they may not be able to do so for legal reasons.
2) most sexual harassment and hostile work environment claims (whether involving a male or female) do not result in termination of the employee even if validated after internal or external investigation.

Thank you for your legal perspective, but with all due respect, this isn’t just a legal issue, it’s also a leadership, ethical, and community trust issue.

1) While it’s true that legal constraints often limit public disclosure, transparency isn’t about revealing every detail of an investigation, it’s about acknowledging that something serious occurred and assuring families that it was handled appropriately. In a youth organization, silence and vague responses only fuel more distrust.

2) The fact that many sexual harassment cases don’t lead to termination isn’t justification, it’s a problem. Especially when the accused is in a position of power and the organization chooses to protect leadership over accountability. That’s how toxic workplace cultures persist.

This isn’t about legal technicalities, it’s about the example being set for staff, players, and families. And right now, the lack of accountability speaks louder than any policy.

I would guess they have a lawyer in all of these internal conversations given that Tom has made a legal claim against them. I am not sure that they could override the legal issues with the more amorphous leadership, ethics and community trust issues you raise. (Also let's be honest, it's a back office administrative officer with minimal contact with the kids and not even most parents know other than as a name at the bottom of e-mails.)

I am not sure this sexual harassment case is the best to hold us as the "problem". Using the victim's own version of the facts: The accused apologized in writing, changed their behavior to be more professional, and was made to undergo training. The victim was not subject to any retaliation, was not subject to further harassment after the complaint and received a promotion out of the reporting line of the accused.

Maybe I'm just jaded because I'm a lawyer who won't be affected either way but, based on Tom's version, I would characterize DCSC's response as "fine" based on the circumstances even if it could have been improved in certain ways. But even in the perfect version of the response, I don't see why I would have had hear about it.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The club over promised to all families over the last 3 years. And not everyone received what they were told to expect.

This is the act of a desperate man. If this was all he had, then he has to be grasping at straws.

And look, I get that Brookland families were promised things but in the grand scheme they have come a long way. With as boutique as t’s club was I highly doubt he was financially stable as a business.

This is likely a money grab from a disgruntled guy facing the reality of soccer in DC. To steal DCSC’s data and then turn around and market to those families is so underhanded that it’s hard to believe DCSC isn’t going to litigate this guy into the ground.

And the thing left unsaid is that he has tried to ruin someone’s life in the process. None of us are seeing the other side of the story. If he calls banter sexual harassment in a email campaign, then the real victim may have recourse.

Greg, that you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are some important questions that deserve answers and for those trying to downplay the situation, we all know who you are. That alone speaks volumes about the leadership at DCSC:

1) Was it appropriate for a CXO to initiate repeated personal or intimate communication with a subordinate, especially after that subordinate clearly declined?

2) In any professional environment, wouldn’t such behavior typically lead to disciplinary action or even termination, given the clear power imbalance and ethical concerns?

3) Why has the Executive Director consistently defended and protected the CXO, despite multiple red flags and concerns raised internally?

4) Why has the board remained silent instead of being transparent with the families who placed their trust in this club?

5) If the roles were reversed, would a male employee have been treated the same way or held to a different standard?

6) If leadership failed to address this openly, is it really wrong for someone to defend their reputation when no one else is willing to speak up?

As a lawyer, wholly disconnected from DCSC leadership, there are two issues with this line of questioning:

1) individual sexual harassment or hostile work environment claims are rarely publicized to customers of the company and in fact they may not be able to do so for legal reasons.
2) most sexual harassment and hostile work environment claims (whether involving a male or female) do not result in termination of the employee even if validated after internal or external investigation.

Thank you for your legal perspective, but with all due respect, this isn’t just a legal issue, it’s also a leadership, ethical, and community trust issue.

1) While it’s true that legal constraints often limit public disclosure, transparency isn’t about revealing every detail of an investigation, it’s about acknowledging that something serious occurred and assuring families that it was handled appropriately. In a youth organization, silence and vague responses only fuel more distrust.

2) The fact that many sexual harassment cases don’t lead to termination isn’t justification, it’s a problem. Especially when the accused is in a position of power and the organization chooses to protect leadership over accountability. That’s how toxic workplace cultures persist.

This isn’t about legal technicalities, it’s about the example being set for staff, players, and families. And right now, the lack of accountability speaks louder than any policy.

Anyone else think it’s a lot to call those text messages “sexual harassment?” I’m not minimizing how they made him feel - only he can know that. But man, if I’d filed a suit every time some weird coworker texted to invite me to drinks, especially if I’d responded with equally as friendly and jokey stuff, I’d be a rich lady.

Anonymous wrote:Here are some important questions that deserve answers and for those trying to downplay the situation, we all know who you are. That alone speaks volumes about the leadership at DCSC:

1) Was it appropriate for a CXO to initiate repeated personal or intimate communication with a subordinate, especially after that subordinate clearly declined?

2) In any professional environment, wouldn’t such behavior typically lead to disciplinary action or even termination, given the clear power imbalance and ethical concerns?

3) Why has the Executive Director consistently defended and protected the CXO, despite multiple red flags and concerns raised internally?

4) Why has the board remained silent instead of being transparent with the families who placed their trust in this club?

5) If the roles were reversed, would a male employee have been treated the same way or held to a different standard?

6) If leadership failed to address this openly, is it really wrong for someone to defend their reputation when no one else is willing to speak up?

As a lawyer, wholly disconnected from DCSC leadership, there are two issues with this line of questioning:

1) individual sexual harassment or hostile work environment claims are rarely publicized to customers of the company and in fact they may not be able to do so for legal reasons.
2) most sexual harassment and hostile work environment claims (whether involving a male or female) do not result in termination of the employee even if validated after internal or external investigation.

Here are some important questions that deserve answers and for those trying to downplay the situation, we all know who you are. That alone speaks volumes about the leadership at DCSC:

1) Was it appropriate for a CXO to initiate repeated personal or intimate communication with a subordinate, especially after that subordinate clearly declined?

2) In any professional environment, wouldn’t such behavior typically lead to disciplinary action or even termination, given the clear power imbalance and ethical concerns?

3) Why has the Executive Director consistently defended and protected the CXO, despite multiple red flags and concerns raised internally?

4) Why has the board remained silent instead of being transparent with the families who placed their trust in this club?

5) If the roles were reversed, would a male employee have been treated the same way or held to a different standard?

6) If leadership failed to address this openly, is it really wrong for someone to defend their reputation when no one else is willing to speak up?

Minimizing a serious allegation by calling it “banter” is exactly why workplace harassment often goes unaddressed. Power dynamics matter. If a CXO repeatedly crossed boundaries with a subordinate, it’s not just poor judgment, it’s misconduct.

This isn’t about business struggles or marketing tactics. It’s about accountability at the highest levels. The club’s broken promises to families only add to a pattern of leadership failure.

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.

The club over promised to all families over the last 3 years. And not everyone received what they were told to expect.

This is the act of a desperate man. If this was all he had, then he has to be grasping at straws.

And look, I get that Brookland families were promised things but in the grand scheme they have come a long way. With as boutique as t’s club was I highly doubt he was financially stable as a business.

This is likely a money grab from a disgruntled guy facing the reality of soccer in DC. To steal DCSC’s data and then turn around and market to those families is so underhanded that it’s hard to believe DCSC isn’t going to litigate this guy into the ground.

And the thing left unsaid is that he has tried to ruin someone’s life in the process. None of us are seeing the other side of the story. If he calls banter sexual harassment in a email campaign, then the real victim may have recourse.

Anonymous wrote:Is it acceptable for a CXO to send messages with intimate intent to a subordinate director in the workplace? And if the director declines but the CXO continues with suggestive or taunting behavior, should that warrant termination?

That may be true, but the fact that the CXO initiated intimate advances toward a subordinate and continued even after being rejected, raises serious concerns about abuse of power.

Even if the behavior eventually stopped, the initial actions and continued taunting are inappropriate and unprofessional in any workplace. In most organizations, that would warrant a formal investigation, and potentially termination. Leadership should be held to the highest standard, especially when it comes to respecting boundaries and workplace ethics.