What's new
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

bsn BSN: Alleged victim in Tumpkin domestic abuse case files lawsuit against group of CU employees

RSSBot

News Junkie
BOULDER – In a press release sent on Wednesday from Peter R. Ginsburg Law LLC, Pamela Fine, the alleged victim in the Joe Tumpkin domestic abuse case, announced that she will be taking legal action against the University of Colorado and the athletic staff.

The suit, which named several individuals associated with Colorado football, is entitled Pamela Fine v. Joseph M. Tumpkin, Mike MacIntyre, Rick George, Philip DiStefano and Bruce Benson.

The lawsuit asserts multiple counts, including claims of assault, battery, false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Tumpkin. It also names MacIntyre, George, DiStefano, and Benson in claims of negligence and civil conspiracy.

The statement from Fine, who is no longer going under a pseudonym “as a show of strength against past intimidation” is as follows.


On December 9, 2016 when I reached out to Coach MacIntyre, it was out of fear for Joe, myself, other women, the players, and the community of Boulder because Joe had become very dangerous to himself and others.

I didn’t want to publicly hurt Joe, the coaching staff and their wives, and all the Colorado football players who had worked so hard to get to their first bowl game. I wanted to protect my abuser and the people around him. I finally picked up the phone to tell my truth to a trusted leader whom I believed would help Joe.

Instead, I unintentionally walked into a world that I had read about but did not believe. For that, I apologize to every survivor whom I secretly questioned in my head as I read their stories of being marginalized and re-victimized by the machine of college athletics.

So, this is no longer about protecting the man who abused me and the powerful men who decided not to do what they were morally, contractually, and legally required to do. I am no longer protecting the men who silence victims in the name of winning football games.

I am now standing up for the young women who sit in my office, where I am a Dean in a large, public high school, every day getting ready to go off to college. They deserve to be safe. They deserve to be heard. They deserve a different future than the women who came before them. My voice is now for them.

The statement was included in a press release that was sent out by Fine’s legal representation. The release includes details into the case that’s being made by Peter R. Ginsberg law.


The filing of this action against several current and former University representatives – specifically, a former Assistant Men’s Football Coach, the Head Men’s Football Coach, Athletic Director, Chancellor and President – is a remarkable act of courage by a person dedicated to helping others who are abused and then ignored by the very people who should be trusted. Our client – who has made a difficult decision to proceed using her identity rather than a pseudonym as a show of strength against past intimidation – suffered repeated and violent abuse at the hands of former Assistant Football Coach Joseph M. Tumpkin.

More from the release:


Initially, our client had no intention of pursuing a lawsuit against these people. Only when it became clear to her that the University had no intention of taking the matter seriously and that the criminal justice system had become mired in inactivity for inexplicable reasons, she realized she had to rely on herself to right the wrong she has endured and to do her best to make sure no one else would endure such abuse again.

This comes a few months after the WilmerHale law firm released the findings of multiple external reports regarding the university’s handling of the domestic violence case.

The investigation concluded that the university had three stand out failures but that there was no intent to cover up or break the law on behalf of CU.

In that case, the alleged victim indicated that she filed a claim against CU, seeking damages in the amount of an estimated $3.7 million, or $5,000 per day for the duration of the domestic violence.

In the lawsuit filed this morning, no amount was stated. The release instead indicated that the plaintiff would seek “damages in an amount to be determined at trial for the pain, suffering, and distress caused by the Defendants, individually and collectively.”

This is a developing story and will be updated as information becomes available.

Chase Howell
Continue reading...
 
So what is this lawsuit actually about? That the people at CU weren't as nice to her as she wanted them to be?
 
The timing of this suit is no accident. Prepare for a media dark cloud hovering over the program for a while.

CU vows to defend it's staff vigorously; I hope that is the case and the distractions are kept to a minimum.

In my view this is a money grab.
 
It seems so strange that a person would expect their abusive significant others employer to resolve their domestic issue.
 
So what is this lawsuit actually about? That the people at CU weren't as nice to her as she wanted them to be?
Money. Cloaking the claim in self-righteousness. I feel badly for her, I really do. If Tumpkin is convicted he should be punished. She should sue him. Suggesting his employers have a duty to protect anyone their employee may harm broadens the concept of legal duty so far that virtually any employer could be sued for anything their employee did if they knew about it. Employers now become the legal guardians and caretakers of the public at large for the acts, even if illegal and intentional, off the clock, off the job and off the employers premises if this claim stands. It is a gross overreach and no amount of posturing about women's rights shields it from what is is. A money grab.
 
Woman calls coach. She says don't do anything that would cause ex to lose job. Coach actually tells boss and a process (a keystone cops style fumbled process, but a process nonetheless) is put into motion. Simultaneously the law is involved. Coach loses job. School investigates the fumbled process. School admits errors and creates plan to address the issues. Woman sues school employees involved for not doing it right, even though she didn't want them to do anything in the first place. Yep, makes sense.

What rubs me the wrong way is the martyr attitude when it's clearly all about the $ at this point.
 
She really is naive if she thinks the University wasn't going to distance themselves from Tumpkin after she got a restraining order against him.
 
Hold up, Wait a minute... There is a flag on the play!

She was abused for over two years, her case claimed over 30 incidents. This went on with no notification, she kept flying out to Colorado, even after 25+ times of being abused, then sues other individuals because they took less less than 30 days to process the information, suspend then fire the employee? GTFOH!!!
 
Back
Top