SMU Kappa Kappa Gamma Member Sues Sorority Over Racy Video
 

SMU Kappa Kappa Gamma Member Sues Sorority Over Racy Video
According to the Dallas Morning News, an SMU senior is suing her sorority over a video that was recorded without consent.


The senior, who identified as “Jane Doe,” filed a lawsuit Wednesday, accusing Kappa Kappa Gamma national sorority of negligence and invasion of privacy. The lawsuit seeks more than $1 million in damages.


The video features “Doe” and other sorority members dancing in their underwear inside the SMU Kappa house Jan. 13 welcoming about 45 new members after bid day.



http://www.smudailycampus.com/news/s...ver-racy-video

The second half of this article raises so many questions...

This may be an interesting case to follow given the rise of social media - both public and seemingly private (like Snapchat) - intermingled with standards.

Did collegians learn nothing from SAE at OU? Someone is always recording you.

The Yahoo Finance article has more detail than the student article. So, she was terminated by Kappa for participating in what her attorney calls a "ritual" (don't think so), along with most of the other participants, and then sues Kappa when there is no evidence that the video was ever posted to social media.

Um, OK. You behaved inappropriately. You were taped. You were punished. Now you're suing the organization that punished you. Sour grapes.

I think some in the legal community have just witnessed a couple of huge invasion of privacy verdicts come down relating to public figures. There may be a little money to be made here. I'm also not so sure (without hitting the books) that this is as much a "nothing" sort of incident as some apparently think. I'd probably have to see the video to really get a good feel for what this is all about.

I agree about the recent privacy invasion cases. From the reports, she chose to participate. Cell phones were turned in, so that no one could tape them dancing in their underwear. Yet, a taping did occur. Kappa found out, investigated, and punished participants. Now she's suing Kappa? Unlike Erin Andrews, who was unknowingly taped, this woman decided to participate in something the participants felt was questionable enough to ask that phones be collected first, and is upset that someone did tape it, and presumably upset that she was terminated. I can see her suing to get the tape, so it isn't posted or shared further, but suing Kappa and the others for damages just looks greedy. And calling this dancing "ritual" seems to be taking advantage of anti-Greek sentiment by making it appear that this was a sorority-endorsed activity.

Allegedly, a “Kappa national agent” used a security camera to record the partially naked women without their consent. She is claiming National planted the camera? Really?

...that according to lawsuit claims, Kappa’s national office heard about the video. The Ohio headquarters told sorority members to “keep quiet and not tell their parents, boyfriends, SMU officials or others what happened on bid night.” So many chapters across all sororities are closed now because of inappropriate behavior, why would a National HQ tell the members to cover up this particular event? Something is not right. Sounds like a special snowflake has never been held accountable for her actions and now is suing out of fear that this could somehow affect her employment opportunities.

DaffyKD

It sounds to me like there may have been a security camera that was not disabled before the partially naked dancing commenced.

IMO, based on prior experience and limited legal knowledge: if Kappa Kappa Gamma followed their own internal policies and procedures (which I am reasonably certain they did - this isn't their first rodeo, they've been around for a while ;)), the lawsuit is dead in the water. It's a private membership organization, and prior court cases have not supported former members who've sued over disciplinary actions as long as the member organization was able to prove that it consistently followed its own policies. Kevin, I can get some legal citations for you if you can't locate them on your own.

Frankly, I would like to think that these young men and women would just stop recording every single sneeze and eye blink. I'm very grateful that I grew up when you had to take film in to be developed, and you didn't consider documenting your escapades. Although there IS this one photo... but I do have the negative and the only copy (that I know of). That's enough out of me.

There are 2 issues here as I see it. 1, as I mentioned in the other thread, is why is this something they want to do? 2, this girl and so many others out there need to learn to put their money where their mouths are at the time of the incident, not later when they're embarrassed it got out. How much hazing and other in poor taste moments would go away if a member stood up and said "Nope, not gonna do this." and walked out? Even 1 person would likely be enough to squelch the whole thing. And there couldn't possibly be backlash or yes, college and much more would be courtesy of the sorority.

Woman up girls! If you think something is wrong, you need to do something about it! And that's now, not some time later when you've been disciplined for doing something you knew was wrong at the time.

Is partially-clothed dancing NOT a part of ritual in your chapters? Strange...

And I can see a lot of safety, risk management and security issues that would arise if they knowingly disabled the security cameras so they dance in their underwear. Why not just put on a long t-shirt and greet the new members while clothed?????

Maybe I'm old, but I just cannot see the value in greeting the New Members wearing only underwear.......just saying.......

I know, right? I thought it was mandatory all-around. Naked pillow fights and all that... /sarcasm

Cosign.... I mean I'm always cold, so I always have layers on, but I think I would have been scared at half naked seniors surrounding me.......

I don't think this lawsuit will go anywhere. A few questions though: 1) who owns the house? If KKG owns the house, they more than likely told the members in writing that there were security cameras on the property. The member probably didn't read the docs before she signed them. If the school owns the house, then that's a no brainer - of course there are security cameras. 2) Why is this girl suing? If 18 Seniors were expelled, why this girl??? And why didn't the other 17 join the lawsuit.

One of the articles seems to imply that there were concerns about the criminality of the acts that were alleged to have occurred.


Quotes below are from the WFAA news article - http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/dalla...wsuit/98523039


This is where I think we're hitting the crux of the issue. How bad was the actual behavior? Regardless of if they were in underwear or topless or whatever, "forcing" or pressuring members to perform in a compromising situation is hazing. I think it would be especially bad if the one young woman indeed had her top ripped off as described. Someone could bring the ripping off of the vest up as a sexual battery (Kevin, opinions?). Also, I'm not sure if forcing new members to watch a sexualized/naked dance number could be some kind of crime. I think that might be what Ms. Rangitsch was alluding to.


Welllllll......this makes it sound like the Kappa House Mom intentionally set out a video camera in order to specifically tape this event. Or.....was it a previously installed and known security camera that has the video feed to a monitor in the house mom's suite?

Also, I wonder if the house mom is the "Kappa national agent" mentioned in the lawsuit. You know, because she's been hired by the house corporation board, therefore, she's an "agent" of the sorority. (?)


The chapter adviser was there and approved of this event????



Wellllllllll....again.......I cannot personally speak to the rituals of Kappa Kappa Gamma; but, I have a hard time believing that national Kappa Kappa Gamma Fraternity has official naked dance "rituals" or that it endorses hazing traditions. Let's not play with words here. Your chapter maybe had a secret tradition of having the seniors do a questionable performance for new members....but that doesn't mean it was ok or endorsed by the national organization. Good grief.

^^^ I'm wondering if the taping was intentional, in an effort to document and put a stop to this tradition. The advisor is also named in the lawsuit, so it doesn't sound like she approved.

Even if the taping was intentional, what are the grounds for a lawsuit here? "You taped me doing something criminal and/or stupid when I thought the cameras were all put away"?

:confused:

State laws vary, and that could possibly be a criminal matter.

What is described in the article is hazing, and I find it obviously doubtful that anyone on a local or national level endorsed this as a ritual.

However, I would be very curious to see what their housing contract states regarding the use of secret video monitoring and security equipment.

IF the camera was placed with the specific purpose of catching people in the act, that just makes their nationals look really bad because there are other ways to address this activity. I don't have enough information to assume either way that it was placed there specifically for this event. But if it hypothetically was, I'd be moving out once my contract was over even if I knew that I never had done anything illegal/shameful or
embarrassing. There are things I assume are private in a sorority, such as bathroom stalls and bedrooms, and IF a sorority is going to take steps to secretly tape my sisters for the purposes of addressing hazing, I'm going to assume they would be willing to film me in other venues where I have a reasonable right to privacy.

I don't think that not seeing the value in this type of activity is an "old person" thing...it's a common sense thing! It's absurd that this was something anyone decided to do in the first place.

Here's my take on this. (Not intended as legal opinion or advice) I looked at two of the news stories and reading between the lines:

First, the behavior in the article was not "ritual" but likely some local tradition. How do I know? There is no way that Baylor (a Baptist university just down the road from SMU) would let the same organization on campus if it was a nationwide "ritual."

Second, the 18 seniors who got "expelled from the chapter", were likely the undergraduate officers that let this go on. The ones receiving lesser punishment from the national organization were likely just senior "indians" not the "chiefs."

Third, a big purpose of the lawsuit is likely an attempt to gain bargaining leverage to get the kids that were thrown out reinstated by the national organization which, if this happens, will likely occur sometime after the seniors' graduation. But I do not really know what "expelled from the chapter" means. Does it mean that they were thrown out of the sorority? Or does it mean that they were deactivated but still members?

Lastly, the national organization (like most) is probably just cracking down on undergraduate behavior that is inconsistent with their organization's "values" and policy. The lawsuit's weakness is lack of certain money damages. Since those on the video likely did not sign a model release and because the video may be embarrassing and may have invaded privacy, they may be successful in getting an order preventing any distribution, showing or copying of the video.

Of course, all this is just my opinion and I could be entirely wrong.