LEGAL RESOURCES
In many instances, all parties to a SafeSport/USEF SafeSport matter have reached out to our organization for recommendations and/or suggestions for names of legal counsel who have demonstrated knowledge and understanding of the SafeSport matters. Both to assist someone in making a SafeSport report and walking them through the process, and also to those that have been contacted by SafeSport due to any form of potential investigation. The Athletes Equity Resource Center provides informational and educational materials for all parties and athletes in 51 Olympic sports. AERC ‘s purpose in offering such materials is to ensure that each and every party has equal access to the resources they need for their opportunity for a fair and just investigation, whatever that may entail.
In an effort to assist, we provide the names of such counsel upon receiving their permission to list their names should someone need to contact them about SafeSport. It is important to note that we do not endorse any particular counsel and provide this list as simply an extra possible resource. AERC will never know if you contacted any such counsel. You must use your own judgment when determining legal assistance.
The following attorneys have agreed to place their names on the available consultation list:.
California
Mike Caddell: mac@caddellchapman.com
Cynthia Chapman: cbc@caddellchapman.com
Howard Jacobs: https://www.athleteslawyer.com/
Florida
Michael Romm: mromm@rommlaw.com
Russell Prince: https://palmaprince.com
Illinois
Steve Silvey: https://www.pattersonlawfirm.com/who-we-are/our-attorneys/steve-silvey/
New York
Jack Wiener:JackRWiener@gmail.com
Virginia
Tamara Tucker: tamara.tucker@tuckerlawplc.com
Texas
Michael Caddell: mac@caddellchapman.com
Dan Cogdell: dcogdell@joneswalker.com
Chris Downey: Chris@Downeylawfirm.com
AERC provides information and is in no way responsible for choices made by users of AERC material. AERC is a 501(c)(3) tax exempt Delaware Corporation. All contributions are tax-deductible.
FEDERAL COMPLAINT
Case 3:24-cv-00030-RSB-JCH Document 1 Filed 04/28/24 Page 1 of 39 Pageid#:1
In the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia
Charlottesville Division
Thomas Navarro, James Giorgio, and Nina Shaffer,
Plaintiffs,
v.
United States Center of SafeSport, United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee, and United States Equestrian Federation, Inc.,
Defendants,
https://athletesequityresourcecenter.com/s/Federal-Case-with-case.pdf
PRESS RELEASE
American Arbitration Association, Commercial Arbitration Tribunal, Final Decision
Case Number: 10-20-0015-8031
James Giorgio, Estate of Robert Gage, Mitchell Steege; Eduardo Zavala Sanchez; Dylan Harries, Thomas Navarro; Thomas Serio, Claimants,
v.
United States Equestrian Federation, Respondent
Final Decision
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE January 10, 2024
ARBITRATION PANEL FINDS THAT SAFESPORT MAY VIOLATE OLYMPIC LAW
In a first-of-its kind case, a panel of three arbitrators has decided that the process used by the US Center for SafeSport (CSS) likely violates the rights of Olympic Movement participants under the Ted Stevens Amateur and Olympic Sports Act. A group of equestrians challenged the process, alleging that the United States Equestrian Federation had violated the Sports Act when it imposed the decisions by the Center. As a result, the equestrians contended that the Federation was no longer eligible to serve as the National Governing Body for Equestrian Sport. Issued on December 27, 2023, the complete written determination is awaiting public posting by the USOPC.
The equestrians were represented by Tamara Tucker of Charlottesville, Virginia, Michael Romm of Ft. Lauderdale, FL, and Steve Silvey of Chicago, IL.
Ms. Tucker filed the first non-compliance complaint for lead claimant, James Giorgio, in August 2019. Additional claimants were represented by Mr. Romm. Mr. Silvey joined the case prior to the arbitration trial.
Ms. Tucker explained, “Mr. Giorgio’s first contact with the Center for SafeSport was a letter out of the blue permanently banning him. He did not receive any notice that he was under investigation prior to that. But even when notice is properly given, the process still violates the Sports Act because you only get a hearing after a final sanction is imposed, and then in order to get the hearing, you have to pay close to $6,000.00. That is just wrong.”
Mr. Romm added, “our position was that not only does the Center’s process violate the Sports Act, it violates the IOC Charter and jeopardizes the standing of US athletes to participate in the Olympics. There is no reason for the Center to operate this way when the right of athletes to get a hearing before being declared ineligible has been part of the Olympic Movement for over 50 years.”
The arbitration panel leveled harsh criticism at the USOPC, the USEF, and the Center for SafeSport:
“For nearly ten years, Respondent and the USOPC have failed to take the steps necessary to address the conflict between the due process rights provided by the CSS/SafeSport Code and the PDH right identified in Section 220522(a)(8) and potentially Section 22054l(a)(l)(H)of the Ted Stevens Act. This case only scratched the surface regarding the reasons why Respondent and the USOPC agreed to remove the longstanding right that an accused Olympic participant was afforded a pre-determination hearing (PDH) under Section 220522(a)(8) when the SafeSportsystem was implemented after the Dr. Larry Nasser scandal in women's gymnastics. The limited evidence presented appears to indicate that the USOPC was either directly responsible or complicit in eliminating this predetermination hearing right when the SafeSport system was created. Whether proper or not, the longstanding right that an accused Olympic participant was afforded a pre-determination hearing under Section 220522(a)(8) was eliminated when the SafeSport system was created by the USOPC.”
“The CSS only doubled down on this pre-determination hearing issue in 2018 when it assumed full control and responsibility for all cases involving sexual misconduct or abuse in sport. To add to the problem, CSS also used its exclusive authority to create SafeSport Rules that prevented an accused Olympic participant from legally challenging its adjudication procedure allowing CSS to issue final decisions against an accused Olympic participant before ever providing a· pre-determination hearing.”
“The issue is whether Claimants could prevail in federal court regarding the legal conflict between the rules and procedures of CSS and the SafeSport Code and the conflicting due process protection identified in Section 220522(a)(8) and other sections of the Ted Stevens Act. As discussed in the analysis above, Claimants clearly have a valid procedural due process claim to adjudicate and this Panel agrees that Claimants could prevail when this conflict of law issue is eventually addressed in federal court.”
“The USOPC and CSS efforts to diminish or minimize this right to procedural due process has been set up for a rebuke by a federal court since the passage and implementation of the original version of the SafeSport Code in 2017 … In the meantime, hundreds of accused Olympic participants may continue to be inappropriately deprived of a legal right to a PDH in their cases.” Ms. Tucker and Mr. Romm confirmed that the equestrians intend to pursue this case further in federal court and with the IOC.