Page |1

Office of Human Resources

Employee and Labor Relations
Suite 430
1590 N. High Street,
Columbus, OH 43201-2190
Phone 614-292-2800
Fax 614-292-0549

CASE REPORT

CONFIDENTIAL
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:

March 9, 2015
Mr. Gene Smith, Athletic Director, Department of Athletics
Ms. Kim Heaton, Human Resource Director, Athletics
Kristi Kuhbander, Employee and Labor Relations Consultant, Office of Human Resources
Allegation of Sexual Harassment EthicsPoint # 526

Allegations
On November 24, 2014, the Office of Human Resources received an anonymous complaint of sexual
harassment via EthicsPoint against the Head Coach of Womens Hockey, Mr. Nate Handrahan.
The anonymous reporter identified as faculty member or instructor. The reporter alleged that a student-athlete
on the Womens Hockey team shared with the reporter during class that Mr. Handrahan makes sexually explicit
comments to many of the girls on the team. The anonymous reporter alleged that the student-athlete shared Mr.
Handrahan and one of the assistant coaches of Womens Hockey, Ms. Carson Duggan, were intoxicated and
unprofessional at the airport during an away-game trip to North Dakota that took place from November 21,
2014, to November 23, 2014.
The anonymous reporter also alleged that the student-athletes do not come forward with their concerns about
the behaviors Mr. Handrahan allegedly exhibits during team practices and meetings because they fear
retaliation.
As additional witnesses were interviewed separate allegations of harassment, unprofessional and intimidating
conduct, and retaliation against Mr. Handrahan were reported to the investigator. In addition to the allegations
against Mr. Handrahan, a separate allegation of retaliation against one of the assistant coaches, Mr. Keith
Maurice1, was reported to the investigator.

The allegations against Mr. Maurice are addressed in a separate investigation report.

Page |2

Scope of the Investigation

The allegations were thoroughly investigated by the Office of Human Resources. The investigator grouped the
allegations as follows:

Inappropriate Comments and Sexual Innuendo

Unprofessional and Intimidating Conduct
Retaliation

In the course of the investigation the following were interviewed:

Mr. Nate Handrahan, Womens Hockey Head Coach, Athletics

Ms. Carson Duggan, Womens Hockey Assistant Coach, Athletics
Mr. Keith Maurice, Womens Hockey Assistant Coach, Athletics
12 additional witnesses identified to have firsthand knowledge of the allegations
o 11 of these witnesses are current student-athletes on the Womens Hockey Team. The witnesses
range from freshman to seniors and include members of the team from both offense and defense.
The witnesses also represent individuals selected to play regularly as well as those who do not.

The investigator also reviewed documentation as a part of this investigation, and these documents included:

Disciplinary action taken against both Mr. Handrahan and Ms. Duggan
Student-Athlete Integrity survey implemented on December 10, 2014
Anonymous complaint2 submitted to the Athletics department in November 2013.

Summary of Interviews
Interview with Student Witnesses 1-11
These 11 witnesses are all student-athletes on the Womens Hockey team. In interviews, they stated the
following, grouped according to the three allegations:
Sexual Harassment: Inappropriate Comments and Sexual Innuendos
These 11 witnesses stated that Mr. Handrahan has made sexual comments or innuendos about the female
players on the team and their relationships with their boyfriends.
One witness stated she felt targeted by Mr. Handrahans inquiries or jokes about her relationship with her
boyfriend. The witness said the comments were unsolicited and made her feel uncomfortable.

One occasion, in January 2014, this witnesss boyfriend was visiting campus and Mr. Handrahan
inquired as to how the visit was going. When the witness replied that she felt bad she was sleeping a lot
due to an injury instead of spending time with her boyfriend, Mr. Handrahan suggested, Why dont you
just give him a Victorias Secret magazine, some lotion, and tell him to take care of it himself. None of
the other witnesses stated they heard this comment first-hand but they stated they were aware it occurred
from others on the team.

The anonymous complaint dated November 2013 alleged that Mr. Handrahans demeanor causes players to walk on eggshells. It
was alleged during the present investigation after Athletics administration spoke with Mr. Handrahan about the anonymous letter, he
confronted the team and shared his disappointment in the letter.
2

Page |3

On a separate occasion, Mr. Handrahan inquired if this witnesss boyfriend had transferred to a school in
Ohio and stated to the witness, if you show up with lead legs I will know what happened. The
witnesses individually described the term lead legs was in reference to the original witness having sex
with her boyfriend and having sore legs as a result. One witness said they heard Mr. Handrahan say this
comment to the original witness first-hand; the other witnesses interviewed stated they were aware it
occurred from others on the team.

One witness stated that, during a team camping trip in August 2014, the group did skits as an activity. The
witness explained part of her skit was to dress up like
. Mr.
represent your two kills3 on
.
Handrahan asked her in front of others, Do
The witness further explained that she previously dated two different men that played for the
Hockey Team. The witness added that she never shared information about her relationships with Mr. Handrahan
and is unsure of how he found out and why he felt that it was appropriate to joke about her relationships. Three
witnesses corroborated hearing Mr. Handrahan say this comment first-hand; other witnesses interviewed stated
they were aware it occurred from others on the team.
One witness stated that, on one occasion, Mr. Handrahan asked another player if she was going to spend time in
a hotel with her boyfriend when he was playing a game for his team nearby. The witness said she can
understand how that comment could have been perceived as inappropriate, but she did not receive any other
inquiries about her boyfriend or her relationship from Mr. Handrahan. The witness added that she believes Mr.
Handrahan is genuinely curious about the details in the players personal lives. Two witnesses stated they heard
Mr. Handrahan say this statement first-hand; the other witnesses interviewed were aware it occurred.
It was stated by one witness that, during a practice last season (2013-2014), a teammate was not at practice
because she was sick. According to the witness, Mr. Handrahan said to the team during huddle, are you sure
she didnt get a kill this weekend and caught an STD. The witness perceived STD to refer to a sexually
transmitted disease.
10 witnesses stated that Mr. Handrahan uses sexually vulgar or explicit language during practices and at games.
The alleged behavior is summarized as follows:

Six witnesses stated Mr. Handrahan used the term get horny for the puck regularly during practice.
The witnesses felt this term was inappropriate and stated that it did not motivate them. One witness
stated Mr. Handrahan told a female referee, get horny for the whistle, during a game.

Nine witnesses stated Mr. Handrahan excessively uses explicit language such as the word fuck during
games which is often directed towards the refereesparticularly the female referees.

Three witnesses stated that, during a practice, Mr. Handrahan approached a player and said, I thought
the walk of shame was on Sunday mornings not Tuesday mornings, in reference to makeup underneath
the players eyes from the night before. The witnesses and the player that was approached stated the
comment was inappropriate, but brushed the comment off because comments like this occurred regularly
and that is just how Nate is.

All of the witness who are student-athletes on the Womens Hockey team explained kills or to get a kill is in reference to having
sex or hooking up.

Page |4

One witness stated that, during a conversation in the presence of an assistant coach, Ms. Carson Duggan,
about recruiting younger athletes, Mr. Handrahan stated that the girls he was recruiting were the same
age as the witnesss brother and said to the witness your brother probably does not have hair on his
nuts. The witness explained the statement from Mr. Handrahan was unsolicited and unnecessary.

One witness stated that, during a recent practice in January 2015, the song called Sexual Healing came
on from a random selection on the iPod. According to the witness, Mr. Handrahan said several times, I
love this song; it is the best song to practice to. The witness said Mr. Handrahan s comments were
directed toward the trainer and equipment manager, but Mr. Handrahan seemed to make the comment so
she and other players nearby could hear what he was saying.

The witnesses collectively stated that Mr. Handrahan may have not have intended to be sexual in nature but that
his comments are unwanted and inappropriate. The witnesses explained Mr. Handrahan is overly curious about
their personal lives and often they are not sure how he finds out about the details of the relationships with their
boyfriends. Some of the witnesses reported Mr. Handrahan gets information about them on social media such as
Facebook and Instagram. Two witnesses stated Mr. Handrahan has requested the players to be friends on
Snapchat so he can see their Snapstories4.
One witness stated Mr. Handrahan warned the players to not send nudes on Snapchat and laughed about it
after saying nudes. The witness stated that she understood the importance of a coach to provide life lessons,
but Mr. Handrahans general approach was disgusting.
The witnesses collectively acknowledged the responsibilities of a coach, but they maintain his actions
consistently cross the line. The witnesses described Mr. Handrahan as acting more like a hockey player instead
of a hockey coach because a lot of the sexual innuendo he makes they say is common in mens hockey. The
witnesses also stated Mr. Handrahans comments are not isolated, but rather are a pattern. According to the
witnesses, the pattern of comments have made them and other players on the team feel uncomfortable and
avoidant towards Mr. Handrahan.
Unprofessional and Intimidating Conduct
The 11 witnesses stated that, while on a trip for a game to North Dakota from November 21-23, 2014, Mr.
Handrahan and Ms. Carson Dugan, Assistant Coach, were visibly intoxicated at the airport prior to departure.
The witnesses added that Mr. Handrahan and Ms. Dugan missed the team bus at 6:15 a.m., and when they
finally arrived at the airport, they reeked of alcohol and acted unprofessionally in the airport concourse. The
witnesses collectively stated they were embarrassed by their coaches behavior.
Three witnesses stated that Mr. Handrahan openly shares the fact that he is recently divorced. The witnesses
explained that Mr. Handrahan has cried or sought out empathy from the players on the team because of his
divorce. According to the witnesses, Mr. Handrahan provided specific details for the reasons of his divorce
during a team meeting with the seniors. One witness stated that Mr. Handrahan was talking about his wife
wrecking his car and referred to her angrily as his bitch ex-wife. Another witness said that Mr. Handrahan
told her and others, My life is a mess. If I dont have you girls, [i.e. the players on the hockey team] what else
do I have? The witnesses collectively stated their feelings that the information Mr. Handrahan has shared
about his divorce is too much information and in some instances has made them feel very awkward and they do
not know how to respond.

Snapchat Stories snapstories are a feature on the Snapchat app that add Snaps together to create a narrative. The snapstory lives
for 24 hours before it disappears, making room for the new. Referenced from https://support.snapchat.com/a/post-story
4

Page |5

10 witnesses stated Mr. Handrahan regularly speaks to them in a belittling and condescending tone. Several of
the witnesses described Mr. Handrahan as a bully. The witnesses explained that all the players dread meetings
with Mr. Handrahan in his office because the meetings are not constructive and, rather, leave them feeling beat
down and in tears. The witnesses collectively stated that, although the other coaches are present in the
meetings, Mr. Handrahan runs the meetings and the coaches do not disagree with Mr. Handrahan.
One witness stated that she questioned Mr. Handrahan during a meeting why she was not getting playing time
and Mr. Handrahan responded to her, no one wants an asshole on their lineup and no one wants a shithead on
their lineup. The witness explained she had no idea what the comment meant because she has always been a
good, coachable player, but felt as if he implied she was an asshole or shithead.
One witness stated that Mr. Handrahan yelled at her in a meeting and when she said to him, I need you to stop
yelling at me, you dont know what it does to me, Mr. Handrahan continued to yell and replied, I havent
yelled, do you want me to show you what yelling is?
One witness stated Mr. Handrahan told her that he likes to see the girls cry because it makes him feel
powerful. The witness added that she was intimidated and shocked by Mr. Handrahans comment.
Two witnesses stated Mr. Handrahan required them to play or practice even though they had medical
restrictions.

One witness stated she has a preexisting injury

and
was not supposed to skate per doctors orders. According to the witness, Mr. Handrahan was aware of
because
her restrictions and yelled at her and forced her to practice, and stated, You have to
that is not what the Ohio State doctors are saying about your restrictions.

One witness stated she was scheduled for

and Mr. Handrahan was aware. The witness explained

and she was not cleared to play

.

Nine witnesses stated Mr. Handrahan inappropriately judged the weight of certain players. The witnesses stated
that, last season, Mr. Handrahan used their IDXA body fat scans to place certain players on additional workouts.
The witnesses acknowledged there is a certain level of fitness they should maintain in their sport. The witnesses
stated Mr. Handrahan never directly called a player fat, however maintained the comments were demeaning and
inappropriate for a coach to say.

One witness stated on her first day of practice as a freshman, Mr. Handrahan pulled her to the side and
told her, you would feel much better about yourself if you would just drop 3 pant sizes. The witness
explained the comment was humiliating and was not perceived to be constructive coaching or helpful
toward her overall athletic performance. The witness added that Mr. Handrahan continued to make
season.
offhand comments about her weight throughout the

One witness stated Mr. Handrahan told her, You didnt play because you can stand to lose a couple
pounds.

One witness stated Mr. Handrahan made subtle comments to imply she is out of shape.

Page |6

Retaliation
The 11 witnesses stated that many of the players are fearful of going to Mr. Handrahan with any issues they
have.
10 of the witnesses stated they are personally fearful of going to Mr. Handrahan based on how he has previously
spoken to them. The witnesses added that they are also fearful of going to Athletics administration because of
Mr. Handrahans likely response. Mr. Handrahan would confront them about matters Athletics administration
counseled Mr. Handrahan on, and, the witnesses explained, Mr. Handrahan in the past has shown strong
disappointment for complaints that have been brought to the attention of Athletics administration.
The witnesses stated Mr. Handrahan negatively responded to them when complaints have occurred in the past.
For example, multiple witnesses stated Mr. Handrahan has said to them, Why dont you guys like me?
According to many of the witnesses, there was an anonymous complaint about Mr. Handrahans coaching style
written to the Athletics Department in December 2013, and Mr. Handrahan confronted the team about the
complaint in a meeting. The witnesses stated Mr. Handrahan openly showed disappointment that the complaint
went to administration. Many of the witnesses explained this caused them to feel fearful to report anything that
happened to them or a teammate. One witness reported Mr. Handrahan said, I know one of you or your
parents wrote the letter, letters like that impact me and my family.
The witnesses also stated Mr. Handrahan recently apologized to the team about his and the other staff members
actions in the airport during a trip to North Dakota. The witnesses stated, during the apology, Mr. Handrahan
told them he wished the complaint would have not gone to administration and stayed internal.
Two witnesses independently reported that, since the investigator spoke with Mr. Handrahan on January 20,
2015, Mr. Handrahan has been distant and barely speaks to the players during practice. One witness added Mr.
Handrahan has stopped running drills at practice and feels he has given up on the season.
The witnesses acknowledged their coach has to hold them accountable, and in some instances the coach should
talk sternly and even yell. However, according to the witnesses, Mr. Handrahan has consistently conducted
himself in an inappropriate way and acted in a demeaning manner toward the majority of the players on the
team.

Page |7

Interview with Witness 12

Witness 12 was recommended to the investigator by many of the student witnesses. On January 6, 2015, witness
12 met with the investigator. The witness indicated she is
The witness described
Mr. Handrahan as having a harder demeanor as compared to other coaches she has worked with.
The witness stated she initially perceived Mr. Handrahan as intimidating and she could see how many of the
players perceived him to be intimidating. The witness noted she had limited interaction with Mr. Handrahan and
typically was not present when the team practiced or played games.
The witness stated she has no first-hand knowledge that Mr. Handrahan made comments with a sexual
undertone or innuendo, however, she got an impression from her interactions with him that he did not have a
filter.
Interview with Carson Duggan
On January 20, 2015, Ms. Duggan met with the investigator. Ms. Duggan indicated that she is currently one of
the assistant coaches for Womens Hockey, has been in her role for two years, and reports to Mr. Handrahan.
Ms. Duggan described Mr. Handrahan as passionate, knowledgeable, and direct in his coaching style. Ms.
Duggan added that Mr. Handrahan can be very direct and intense, but he has never made her feel disrespected.
Ms. Duggan stated Mr. Handrahan does not yell at a player any more than any other coach would. She
explained that Mr. Handrahan holds players accountable and, at times, has the unfortunate responsibility of
delivering tough messages to the players. Ms. Duggan stated that Mr. Handrahans direct tone may cause some
of the players to get emotional, but his message has never been degrading or demeaning.
Ms. Duggan corroborated on one occasion a player told him, I dont like when you yell at me, you dont know
what it does to me, and Mr. Handrahan responded, I dont yell at you, but I can show you what yelling is.
Ms. Duggan made it clear Mr. Handrahan was not yelling at the player at the time.
Ms. Duggan acknowledged a lot of the players have come to her with complaints about Mr. Handrahan.
However, the complaints have all been about his direct coaching style and never about an allegation of sexual
comments or jokes. Ms. Duggan stated she was concerned of the allegations and, if she had been aware, she
would have taken measures to stop it. Ms. Duggan explained she is not around all of the players and Mr.
Handrahan at all times so she cannot ascertain that the comments never occurred, but she never personally heard
him make a sexually charged comment or joke.
Ms. Duggan stated she has never witnessed Mr. Handrahan discourage or threaten a player for making a
complaint against him.
In regard to the allegation that she and Mr. Handrahan were intoxicated in an airport terminal on November
2014, Ms. Duggan stated the coaching staff were all up late and admitted they drank a lot the night before and,
since, they have taken responsibly for their actions that caused the team to feel disappointment. Ms. Duggan
stated that Mr. Handrahan apologized to the team for their actions and showed disappointment that they did not
feel comfortable to come to him directly with their concerns. In her opinion, he did not admonish any of the
players for reporting concerns to the Athletic Director.

Page |8

Interview with Keith Maurice

On January 20, 2015, Mr. Maurice met with the investigator. Mr. Maurice indicated he is currently one of the
assistant coaches for Womens Hockey. Mr. Maurice added he has been in his role for two years and reports to
Mr. Handrahan. Mr. Maurice described Mr. Handrahan as passionate, committed, and direct in his coaching
style. Mr. Maurice stated he never witnessed Mr. Handrahan make a sexually charged or inappropriate comment
or joke directed toward any player on the team. Mr. Maurice stated he does not recall if Mr. Handrahan made
comments about a players weight and, to his knowledge, Mr. Handrahan never pressured a player to lose
weight in an unhealthy way. Mr. Maurice explained, Mr. Handrahan works closely with the strength and
conditioning coach to put together workouts to improve a players overall body composition, when warranted.
Mr. Maurice stated he is not aware if Mr. Handrahan required a player to play against doctor restrictions. Mr.
Maurice stated, because Mr. Handrahan can be very direct and honest with the student-athletes about their status
on the team, they may not like the messages he provides them. Mr. Maurice added, regardless if the players like
to hear what Mr. Handrahan has to say, it is Mr. Handrahan s responsibility to provide that feedback. Mr.
Maurice said Mr. Handrahan is consistent and, on some occasions, the players got emotional but Mr. Handrahan
has never been demeaning or abusive.
Mr. Maurice stated, to his knowledge, Mr. Handrahan never made comments to discourage or threaten a player
for reporting concerns to Athletics administration. Mr. Maurice acknowledged many of the players are
reluctant to go to Mr. Handrahan about any issues because they do not want to deal with Mr. Handrahan s
direct method of communication.
Interview with Nate Handrahan
On January 20, 2014, Mr. Handrahan met with the investigator. Mr. Handrahan is currently the Womens
Hockey Head Coach. Mr. Handrahan stated this is his fourth season at The Ohio State University.
Mr. Handrahan responded to the aforementioned allegations as follows:
Sexual Harassment: Inappropriate Comments and Sexual Innuendo
Mr. Handrahan stated the allegation of Sexual Harassment against him was concerning and he denied he made
any inappropriate comments or sexual innuendo to any player on the Womens Hockey team. Mr. Handrahan
stated he is aware that he works in a female sport and takes that into consideration all the time when speaking
with his team.
Mr. Handrahan stated he never inappropriately inquired about any players relationship with their boyfriends
and never made sexual jokes about their relationships. Mr. Handrahan could not recall if he made any of the
alleged comments provided by the witnesses.
Mr. Handrahan admitted he said, get horny for the puck, to various players during practice. Mr. Handrahan
explained that, although he made that comment, he did not say it frequently.
Mr. Handrahan denied that he made vulgar or explicit comments directed towards female or male referees. Mr.
Handrahan admitted he drops an f-bomb occasionally but he does not use language that is demeaning or
degrading to females.

Page |9

Mr. Handrahan denied making the specific comment to a player, Do

represent your two kills
on
in reference to the players prior sexual history. Mr. Handrahan stated he is aware what the
term kill means and explained it is widely used in the hockey community and is a reference to sexual partners.
Mr. Handrahan also stated he could not speculate why multiple witnesses reported such specific allegations in
regard to his verbal conduct to various players on the team.
Despite the fact that Mr. Handrahan told the investigator he could not recall making any of the alleged
comments reported by the student witnesses, he later stated to the investigator that the allegations were all taken
out of context. Mr. Handrahan did not explain to the investigator how or why the allegations were taken out of
context.

Unprofessional and Intimidating Conduct

Mr. Handrahan described himself as a leader that is demanding but not demeaning. Mr. Handrahan explained he
has high expectations of his players. Mr. Handrahan acknowledged he has one-on-one meetings with the players
and that the assistant coaches are almost always present in the meetings. Mr. Handrahan stated he never yelled
at a player but he has spoken to players directly because that is a way he holds them accountable. Mr.
Handrahan denied pressuring any player to lose weight or making derogatory comments about any players
weight. Mr. Handrahan explained he had discussions with a specific player about her body composition,
however denied telling her, you will be much happier if you lose three pant sizes.
Mr. Handrahan denied forcing any player to practice or play in a game against orders from the players medical
provider. Mr. Handrahan stated that anytime he had knowledge of the medical necessity to hold a player out of
a lineup, he always followed the doctor instructions.
Mr. Handrahan acknowledged he discussed details of his divorce with the players in a leadership role on the
team, but does not recall if he referred to his ex-wife as a bitch to anyone on the team. Mr. Handrahan stated
he wishes he would have never shared those details with the leadership on the team. Mr. Handrahan refused to
tell the investigator why he regretted sharing his divorce details.
Retaliation
As for the concern expressed by students that they feared retaliation if they spoke up about Mr. Handrahans
conduct, Mr. Handrahan stated he never threatened or discouraged a player for making a complaint against him.
Mr. Handrahan acknowledged he apologized to the team for the incident that occurred in the airport in North
Dakota. Mr. Handrahan stated he was emotional because he let his team down and, during the apology, he told
the team he was disappointed none of them felt comfortable to come to him directly but he understood they
have other resources they could utilize.
Mr. Handrahan maintained he never made a retaliatory comment to the team or directed towards someone who
reported him to Athletics administration.

P a g e | 10

Additional Information Reviewed

The Athletics Department became aware of the airport incident involving Mr. Handrahan and Ms. Duggan
during the North Dakota trip in November 2014. As a result of their behavior, the Athletics Department took
corrective action against both Mr. Handrahan and Ms. Duggan on December 1, 2014 by giving them a written
reprimand and informing them that violations of NCAA, university or department policy will result in further
corrective action, up to and including termination. The investigator reviewed those disciplinary actions as a part
of this investigation.
On December 10, 2014, the Athletics Department issued a Student-Athlete Integrity Survey. The purpose of the
survey was to gather feedback from student- athletes so Athletics administration can assess the culture within
each team. This first issuance to all teams was on December 10, 2014 and will be an ongoing practice for the
Athletics department and will be issued to each team two times per year. To date, the Athletics Department is
still reviewing the surveys and is in the process of preparing summary reports and determining appropriate
follow-up actions.
As a result of the timing of the survey and the present allegations, the investigator reviewed the surveys issued
to the Womens Hockey team and established the following:

25 surveys were completed by the student-athletes on the Womens Hockey team.

12 surveys completed by members of the Womens Hockey team showed trends of concerns,
specifically, being uncomfortable communicating an issue that happens to someone in their sport.
Many of the surveys suggested concerns with the head coach.

Analysis and Conclusions

Allegations of Sexual Harassment: Inappropriate Comments and Sexual Innuendo
Pursuant to the universitys Sexual Harassment Policy 1.15, sexual harassment includes unwelcome sexual
advances, requests for sexual favors, and other physical or verbal conduct of a sexual nature when it meets any
of the following:
A. Submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individuals
employment or academic status.
B. Submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment or academic
decisions affecting such individual.
C. Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individuals work or academic
performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment for working, learning or living on
campus. Sexual harassment can occur between any individuals associated with the university, e.g., an
employee and a supervisor; coworkers; faculty members; a faculty, staff member or student and a customer,
vendor or contractor; students; or a student and a faculty member.

University policy and Title IX both require university administration, faculty, staff, student employees, and
volunteers to be responsible for assuring that the university maintains an environment for work and study free
from sexual harassment. Sexual harassment impedes the realization of the universitys mission of equality and
distinction in education, scholarship, and service. Sexual harassment violates the dignity of individuals and will
not be tolerated. Prompt corrective measures will be taken to stop sexual harassment whenever it occurs.

P a g e | 11

The investigator considered the following factors when evaluating whether the facts showed a university policy
violation by Mr. Handrahan.

The degree to which the conduct affected one or more students educational experience.
The type, frequency, and duration of the conduct.
The identity of and relationship between the alleged harasser and the subject or subjects of
the harassment.
The number of individuals involved.
The age and sex of the alleged harasser and the subject or subjects of the harassment.
The size of the school, location of the incidents, and the context in which they occurred.
Other incidents at the school.
Incidents of gender-based, but nonsexual harassment.

In assessing these factors, it is the totality of the circumstances in which the behavior occurs that is critical
in determining whether a hostile environment exists. Consequently, in using the above factors to evaluate
incidents of alleged harassment, it is always important to use reasonable judgment in determining whether a
sexually hostile environment has been created. Also consistent with federal guidance, the investigator has
considered the conduct from both an objective and subjective perspective.
A review of the witness statements and documentation, Mr. Handrahan s statements, as well as an evaluation of
the credibility of all the individuals interviewed established that Mr. Handrahan engaged in a pattern of verbal
conduct of a sexual nature that unreasonably interfered with the athletic experience of many students on the
Womens Hockey Team. The student witnesses interviewed were highly credible and consistent in their
statements and there is no evidence to suggest the witnesses misrepresented the truth or the impact they
experienced.
Mr. Handrahan denied making sexually inappropriate comments or using sexual innuendo, and denied making
most of the specific comments the students reported. But then he stated that many of the comments reported
were taken out of context. However, Mr. Handrahan provided insufficient explanation of the context he
referred to, and therefore the investigator was unable to determine to how Mr. Handrahan believed the
comments were appropriate or justified.
The investigation substantiated that Mr. Handrahan engaged in a pattern of sexual inquiries, jokes, and
innuendo toward players on the Womens Hockey team. The female student-athletes were overwhelmingly
consistent in their testimony that the head coachs sexualized comments and innuendo were persistent (and not
simply stray or isolated events), that they were improper, and that this conduct was experienced as unwelcome
and inappropriate. The students also consistently reported on the coachs unwelcome interest in and comments
about their dating relationships, and the students provided numerous examples of specific instances where that
interest was voiced by Mr. Handrahan through sexualized and improper comments.
Accordingly, the conclusion of the investigator is a finding of sufficient evidence of a violation of the
universitys Sexual Harassment Policy 1.15.
It should be noted that none of the witnesses indicated that any of the other members of the coaching staff,
including Ms. Duggan or Mr. Maurice, participated in making sexual comments and/or innuendo nor does the
evidence indicate that Ms. Duggan or Mr. Maurice knew or reasonably should have known of the pattern of Mr.
Handrahans sexual comments and innuendo.

P a g e | 12

Allegation of Unprofessional and Intimidating Conduct/Workplace Violence

Pursuant to the universitys Workplace and Family and Relationship Violence Policy 7.05, The Ohio State
University is committed to providing faculty, staff and students with an environment that is safe, secure and free
from threats, intimidation, and violence. A review of statements and documentation did not substantiate that Mr.
Handrahan engaged in conduct directed towards any student-athlete on the Womens Hockey team that violates
the universitys Workplace and Family and Relationship Violence Policy 7.05.
However, the witnesses consistently reported that the manner by which Mr. Handrahan approached issues and
concerns with the players was disrespectful and demeaning. While it was taken into consideration that there is
an expectation of coaches to hold their players accountable, the witnesses consistently stated Mr. Handrahans
harsh approach with them was interpreted as intimidating. The witnesses also consistently reported Mr.
Handrahan engaged in conduct that was perceived as unprofessional, such as, discussing details of his divorce
with several players on the team. The findings indicate that Mr. Handrahans interactions with the witnesses
were inconsistent with university and Athletic Department values, and accordingly, the conclusion of the
investigator is a finding of inappropriate behavior as a result of this unprofessional and intimidating conduct.
It should be noted that in light of restrictions regarding sharing personal health information with the
investigator, the Department of Athletics will further investigate the student-athletes comments regarding
playing and/or practicing despite alleged medical restrictions.
Allegation of Retaliation
Pursuant to the universitys Whistleblower Policy 1.40, The Ohio State University encourages all faculty, staff,
students and volunteers, acting in good faith, to report suspected or actual wrongful conduct and the policy
prohibits retaliation in any form against any individual for having made a complaint. University faculty, staff,
students, or volunteers may not directly or indirectly use or attempt to use the official authority or influence of
their positions or offices for the purpose of interfering with the right of an individual to make a protected
disclosure to the individuals immediate supervisor or other appropriate administrator or supervisor within the
operating unit, or other appropriate university official. Therefore, any action taken because of protected activity
and that may deter a reasonable person from protected activity is retaliation prohibited by the policy.
Many of the witness statements corroborated that the way Mr. Handrahan addressed his concerns with
complaints being made to Athletics administration was intimidating and deterred student-athletes from
previously voicing the concerns addressed in this investigation.
By way of examples, the students consistently described Mr. Handrahans reaction to a letter that had been
written to the Athletics department about his coaching style in 2013 and his chastising of the team following the
report to Athletics about his involvement in the airport incident. These events were cited by the students as
discouraging and intimidating them from reporting further concerns.
In addition, two witnesses independently reported that that as a result of this investigation, and since Mr.
Handrahan was interviewed by Human Resources on January 20, 2015, Mr. Handrahan has been distant and
barely speaks to the players during practice, and one witness indicated that Mr. Handrahan stopped running
drills at practice. Cumulatively, this conduct in reaction to the complaint amounts to a deprivation of the quality
coaching the students are entitled to at the university.
As such, the conclusion of the investigator is a finding of sufficient evidence of retaliation in violation of
universitys Whistleblower Policy 1.40.

P a g e | 13

Action Steps
In accordance with university policies, the allegations brought forth have been fully investigated by the Office
of Human Resources. As a result, the following actions must be taken:
1. The department of Athletics should take the appropriate corrective action with respect to Mr. Handrahan
in accordance with The Ohio State policy and procedure.
2. All parties are formally notified that they cannot retaliate and/or request explanations or rationale from
persons in relation to the statements gathered during this investigation or their participation in this
investigation.
These action steps are final. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to call me at 614-292-0864.

Kristi Kuhbander
Employee & Labor Relations Consultant