Clery Act Violation Justifies Dismissal Of Winston-Salem Football Coach

The North Carolina Court of Appeals has affirmed the dismissal of the Winston-Salem football head coach, who also had reporting obligations under The Clery Act

On 4 April 2019, two WSSU football players were involved in an altercation during practice and fought again in the weightroom after practice. Boulware intervened and sent the players home. Later that morning, he was informed the altercation had reignited in the players’ dorm room.

On his way to the dorms, Boulware contacted the father of one of the students and he was informed of a possibility a gun was involved. Boulware arrived at the dorm room with an assistant coach, engaged with the players, but did not contact WSSU Police. The players were asked if there was a gun in the room. All answered no and no formal search occurred. A bag with a substance, possibly marijuana, was found in the room, but no gun was seen. Boulware gave the bag to the student’s father, who had arrived, and he disposed of it. Boulware attempted to inform the Athletic Director, but he could not reach him. He never informed the WSSU Police Department or the Director of Athletics, instead contacting only the Office of Student Conduct.

Termination

Boulware argues the Final Decision to terminate his employment was not supported by substantial evidence because all decisions were based upon a misapprehension of The Clery Act. 20 U.S.C. § 1092(f) (2018) (tasking universities with reporting crimes and keeping a public crime log). He argues WSSU relied upon a misapprehension of The Clery Act as a basis for their argument against him, and substantial evidence does not exist to support the Board’s decision. Id.

Substantial evidence tends to show Boulware engaged in a significant violation of his assigned contractual duties. Boulware signed his CSA training letter on 7 November 2019 and acknowledged his awareness and understanding of his duty to immediately report any on-going threats to the university’s police department even if unsure whether an on-going threat existed.

Boulware testified he was aware of the possibility of a gun being involved in the altercation between his players, yet instead of contacting law enforcement, he engaged with numerous people, including the agitated players and the father of one of the players inside the dorm for over two hours. Despite being made aware of the potential presence of a gun, Boulware never searched for one nor informed university police of this allegation. This testimony alone is a substantial violation, and his failure to comply risked serious harm or even death of students, staff, or the public.

Clear and substantial evidence of a violation of Boulware’s contractual obligations was presented and substantiated his termination.

(Mike Frisch)