10 Reasons To Be Glad You're Not An In-House Lawyer at Michigan State University
The university where Larry Nassar abused athletes for two decades is facing investigations on almost every imaginable level.
April 23, 2018 at 03:38 PM
11 minute read
Photo: EQRoy/Shutterstock.com
The Larry Nassar sex abuse scandal at Michigan State University has spurred no fewer than 10 separate investigations or inquiries by public bodies, according to information recently obtained by Corporate Counsel through Freedom of Information Act requests.
At least one of the inquiries has already returned a scalding report about MSU's failures.
Initially the probes were being handled by then-general counsel Robert Noto, who resigned under pressure in mid-February. To take over the investigations, MSU hired outside attorney Robert Young Jr., a business lawyer, former general counsel of AAA Michigan, and former chief justice of the Michigan Supreme Court.
Young is of counsel in the Lansing, Michigan office of Dickinson Wright, a Detroit-based law firm, and is an adjunct professor at MSU's College of Law in East Lansing. He served a record three terms as chief justice and was the highest elected African-American official in the state.
Young was traveling Friday and unavailable for comment on the probes. He forwarded the request to MSU vice president and spokeswoman Emily Guerrant.
In a statement to Corporate Counsel on Friday, Guerrant said MSU is unable to comment at this time. “Michigan State University is deeply sorry for the abuse suffered by the survivors at the hands of Larry Nassar, and we are working on improvements throughout the university in our policies and practices that will prevent something like this from ever happening again,” she wrote.
Young is coordinating the investigations into how MSU handled complaints about Nassar, the university sports doctor, who is likely one of the most infamous serial sexual predators in U.S. history. More than 250 women, mostly young athletes when they knew Nassar, claim he assaulted them as part of his treatments or examinations. Nassar has since been sentenced to decades in prison after pleading guilty.
Here is a look at the 10 investigations, with information derived from the FOIA responses, other official documents and news reports. The school has said it is cooperating with all the investigations and inquiries.
- U.S. Department of Education, Clery Act Review
The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act is a federal statute requiring colleges and universities participating in federal financial aid programs to maintain and disclose campus crime statistics and security information.
The U.S. Department of Education notified the school on Jan. 18 that it was opening an investigation into MSU's compliance with the Clery Act. Violations can have serious financial consequences.
It was a Clery Act investigation that led to Penn State University's being ordered to pay a record $2.4 million penalty in 2016 over its failures in handling former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky's child abuse.
On Jan. 26, the department issued this statement from U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos: “My heart breaks for the survivors of Larry Nassar's disgusting crimes. What happened at Michigan State is abhorrent. It cannot ever happen again — there or anywhere.”
2. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights, Title IX Investigation
The Title IX Act requires universities to investigate allegations of sexual assault and harassment. On Feb. 26, DeVos announced a separate investigation into MSU's Title IX compliance in the Nassar matter.
In the statement DeVos said, “This new Title IX investigation will look at systemic issues in the university's handling of sex-based incidents involving Dr. Larry Nassar. Our Office for Civil Rights team will be in East Lansing shortly where they will join the Federal Student Aid team already on site [performing the Clery Act review].”
If a Title IX violation is found, an institution is usually given time to correct it voluntarily. If it refuses to remedy the violation, then the Office of Civil Rights may initiate administrative procedures to halt federal funding to the institution; or, refer the case to the U.S. Department of Justice to pursue a case in federal court. Both actions are rare.
3. NCAA Inquiry
On Jan. 24 the National Collegiate Athletic Association released this statement: “The NCAA has sent a letter of inquiry to Michigan State University regarding potential NCAA rules violations related to the assaults Larry Nassar perpetrated against girls and young women, including some student-athletes at Michigan State.”
Mark Hollis, then MSU athletic director, released a statement saying, “In regards to the letter we received from the NCAA last night, the athletic compliance and university general counsel offices are preparing a comprehensive response.” He later resigned under pressure.
Michigan State issued a response on April 19 to the NCAA investigation but declined to discuss any details, according to an article in the Detroit Free Press. The NCAA did not comment on whether it received the information or what its timetable is for reviewing the materials, the article said.
The NCAA also investigated the Penn State sex scandal and levied severe athletic penalties, such as banning bowl appearances and cutting sports scholarships, but many were later rescinded amid criticism that the organization was abusing its authority over athletics.
4. Michigan Attorney General Investigation
On Jan. 27 Michigan Attorney General William Schuette announced he was opening an investigation to probe “systemic issues with sexual misconduct” at MSU.
Schuette appointed retired county prosecutor William Forsyth as an independent special prosecutor to lead the investigation, which is still ongoing, with help from Michigan State Police.
“It is abundantly clear that a full and complete investigation of what happened at Michigan State University, from the president's office on down, is required. This investigation is and will continue to be independent, thorough, transparent and prompt,” Schuette said in a statement.
On March 27 Forsyth arraigned his first criminal suspect, William Strampel, on charges that include criminal sexual misconduct, willful neglect of duty and misconduct by a public official. Strampel served as dean of the MSU College of Osteopathic Medicine, and was Nassar's supervisor. He has denied the charges.
5. Michigan House of Representatives Inquiry
The Michigan House's Law and Justice Committee and the Appropriations Subcommittee on Higher Education jointly began a bipartisan inquiry in January. An April 5 report outlined their findings.
Among other criticisms, the report excoriated MSU for its improper investigative procedures in a 2014 probe of a Nassar complaint, for its inadequate policies and for “appearing to defiantly and wrongfully maintain it did not mishandle this [2014 Nassar] investigation.”
The report went on, “It is incontrovertible that MSU arrived at the wrong conclusion in 2014 and failed to properly conduct its investigation, and MSU would do well to fully acknowledge that mistake.”
The report included 50 questions the committee asked MSU, and the school's answers, as submitted by attorney Scott Eldridge of Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone.
The document stated, “As these findings indicate, there are clear gaps in current law, regulations, and policies that help enable an environment which, unfortunately, has proven ripe for abuse.”
It went on to recommend 24 legislative changes to prevent abuses and better handle them when they do occur, ranging from making it a crime to interfere with a person seeking to report criminal sexual abuse, to “requiring all Title IX reports regarding an MSU employee to be transmitted to the board of trustees.”
6. Michigan Senate Inquiry
On Feb. 14 the Higher Education Appropriations Subcommittee of the Michigan Senate opened a series of meetings to examine “current sexual misconduct policies at Michigan's public universities “ and examine possible reforms.
At a March 16 session, the panel heard testimony from MSU Interim President John Engler on actions he is taking to address the Nassar scandal.
Sen. Tonya Schuitmaker, who chairs the Senate subcommittee, said in a statement, “Committee members and I wanted to hear what the new administration's plans are moving forward. We are going to continue these hearings and continue looking at what we can do to create a safe learning environment for students.”
7. U.S. Senate Commerce Subcommittee Inquiry
The Consumer Protection, Product Safety, Insurance, and Data Security Subcommittee held a hearing on April 18 entitled, “Olympic Abuse: The Role of National Governing Bodies in Protecting Our Athletes.” Nassar also served as a sports doctor for the U.S. Olympic team and USA Gymnastics Inc.
The hearing provided a forum for survivors of abuse to discuss specific concerns and challenges in preventing abuse within their respective sports, and to discuss the recently enacted Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act of 2017, which authorizes an independent entity to investigate and prevent abuse of athletes.
Senators heard the testimony of Olympic gold medalist McKayla Maroney, including her challenge to MSU over its handling of Nassar: “It is time to hold the leadership of Michigan State University, USA Gymnastics and the United States Olympic Committee accountable for allowing, and in some cases enabling, his crimes.”
8. U.S. House of Representatives Inquiry #1
In a Jan. 26 letter to MSU's board of trustees, the U.S. House Commerce Committee said it was opening an inquiry as part of a larger examination into the U.S. Olympic Committee. The legislators questioned whether the university has “sufficient oversight mechanisms” to prevent abuse and sought information from MSU on how it deals with incidents involving employees and students.
In another letter on March 7 to Engler, the committee asked for more information and documents.
That letter said, “Based on information received to date, the committee is concerned by apparent gaps in oversight that enabled a Michigan State University employee to abuse MSU student-athletes, as well as other young women who participated in events at the University or were treated through the employee's involvement with outside organizations.”
9. U.S. House of Representatives Inquiry #2
On Feb. 8 the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform sent a letter to MSU's Engler as part of a broader inquiry into the U.S. Olympic Committee, USA Gymnastics Inc., Twistars USA Gymnastics Club and Karolyi Ranch regarding sexual assault by Nassar within the U.S. gymnastics system.
The Engler letter said, “One of the most disturbing aspects of the survivors' accounts is how this reprehensible conduct went undetected or ignored for years. Coaches, instructors, law enforcement, and other trusted adults all failed these young athletes.”
“Michigan State University is at the center of many of these failures,” lawmakers wrote.
The letter requested a list of documents and information required from MSU by Feb. 22. So far no hearing or further action has been scheduled.
10. Higher Learning Commission Inquiry
The Chicago-based Higher Learning Commission oversees the accreditation of degree-granting colleges and universities in 19 mostly Midwestern and South-Central states, including Michigan.
On March 6 the organization disclosed it designated MSU as under “governmental investigation.”
The purpose of the designation “is to inform the public that an investigation by governmental agencies warrants concern from HLC as the accrediting agency,” the commission said in its statement. It noted accreditation implications related to “institutional integrity, effective leadership, and processes for complaints and grievances, given the allegations present in the ongoing investigations of the university.”
MSU was required to file a report on March 8 addressing the accreditation issues as well as compliance with Title IX federal requirements. It also must provide ongoing reports on new developments or related findings by the state and federal investigations.
“HLC will continue to monitor the university and retains the authority to schedule additional monitoring, or take other action, as deemed appropriate,” it said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWhy ACLU's New Legal Director Says It's a 'Good Time to Take the Reins'
Top Governor's Office Executives Drafted Letters Threatening Florida TV Stations Over Abortion Ads
3 minute readHunter Biden Sues Fox, Ex-Chief Legal Officer Over Mock Trial Series
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250