72°
NEW CANAAN, Conn. The New Canaan Lacrosse Association believes a lawsuit filed by former coach and board member Claudia Harris is without merit.
Robert Noonan, the attorney representing the youth lacrosse group, said in a statement released Friday that the organization does not plan to give in.
This is the second lawsuit filed as a result of a vote by the New Canaan Lacrosse Association Board of Directors to remove Dr. Harris from the NCLA Board. As with the first lawsuit, Claudia Sickinger MD and Roger Harris v. The New Canaan Lacrosse Association et al., filed in January, 2011, this lawsuit is without merit. The NCLA looks forward to the court ruling accordingly, he said.
Noonan added that the lacrosse association will let the legal process bring this matter to a conclusion and will continue to focus its efforts on the betterment of the young people it serves."
Harris and her husband, Roger, are suing the lacrosse association, claiming they kicked her off of the associations board and dismissed her as a girls lacrosse coach in August 2010 after she made complaints about unequal treatment for girls and bullying. She wants monetary damages, a return to the organization's board, her coaching position back, and new rules to prevent bullying and unequal treatment.
Update: Claudia Harris contacted The Daily New Canaan on Friday afternoon to respond to Noonans statement.
I am not at all surprised with the New Canaan Lacrosse Association attorneys reaction today, as it spotlights what the problem in the NCLA's culture has been all along. A few of those in power at the NCLA continue to insist that this is about them maintaining their control and not about what is best for the kids and the community. Their public statement is exactly how they have acted in private, and this is what we are looking to change. It continues to be disappointing that, rather than act in good faith toward the promotion of fair and equal treatment, they make it about them with a statement about how they will not back down, she said. Harris added that claims that she and her husband filed a second suit is not really accurate. The NCLA obstructed the court from addressing the merits of our case when we first filed our claim, so we simply had to take an extra a procedural step to remove that obstruction by re-filing our claim. So this is NOT a second suit, but a re-filing of our original suit.
Since it was the NCLA's obstruction that caused us to need to re-file, it is certainly disingenuous for them to characterize this as a 'second' suit' when, in fact, the case or its merits were never ruled upon.
Click here to follow Daily Voice New Canaan and receive free news updates.
