[VladtheImpaler]

Having read the report, and thinking about it as a manager in terms what I would do, and in terms of large organizations... There is a meeting in May, where it is unclear exactly what is raised - allegations of sexual assault or allegations of sexual "relations" - I am not sure it is established exactly what the issue raised at that meeting was. The big boss present (McDonagh) basically says "we are in a unique situation, so I will take care of this, and you hockey guys focus on hockey". If you are Coach Q, what else are you supposed to do? For myself, if I am THE boss, I would tell the people involved to take a leave and "investigate" and then decide accordingly. But Q is not the boss, and the actual boss tells him that "he's got it - just do your job". I am not sure Q should have done any more at that point, as he is not the decision maker. It's like you are a group manager in large company, there is a "sexual incident" and the VP, Western Canada, says "I will take care of it" - are you supposed to do anything else? I think the imperative for Q to do "something" depends on exactly how detailed of a scenario was presented at that May 23 meeting, and I don't think that is clear and seems like assault was not suggested...
Now, what happens after in terms of Q's evaluations... again, if he doesn't know any more than the guy resigned, why not give him a positive review? Maybe Q thought he was being "progressive" by not punishing Aldrich for being gay. Who knows?
It is very clear that McDonagh, as the ultimate decision maker, bears responsibility - it was incumbent upon him to investigate properly and to act appropriately, and he clearly did not do that. Everyone else down the food chain... it is really unclear exactly what they knew beyond "there was a sexual thing between the video coach and a player", so what were they supposed to do? Definitely, Chicago Blackhawks, the organization, bears heavy responsibility, as does McDonagh, the individual, as the boss and the one who took charge of the situation. HR person too because, really, that's what HR is for, isn't it? Everyone else, I am frankly unclear about what they knew, how curious they should have been and what they should have done. It is not a Nurenburg situation where the boss has ordered you to do something illegal/unconscionable and you have a duty to refuse. If the boss tells you that he will take care of it and does in fact "take care of it", is it incumbent on Q to stick his nose in further? If all I know it's a "sex thing" between my assistant and another employee and my boss "takes care of it", why would I stick my nose into a private and uncomfortable mattter? UNLESS I SPECIFICALLY KNOW THAT SEXUAL ASSAULT IS ALLEGED.
As far as being evasive now - lawsuit...