Critical Federal Report Faults Michigan State's General Counsel Office in Nassar Scandal
The report cites numerous violations of the Clery Act, a federal law that requires universities receiving federal student aid to disclose data about campus crime and public safety.
January 31, 2019 at 07:06 PM
4 minute read
Michigan State University's failure to detect and stop multiple sexual assaults by former sports doctor Larry Nassar shows a lack of institutional control and serious administrative impairment, the U.S. Department of Education said in a preliminary report that pointed a finger at the school's Office of General Counsel.
The findings were delivered to the school Dec. 14, but only became public this week. Corporate Counsel obtained a copy of the 47-page report Thursday. It cites numerous violations of the Clery Act, a federal law that requires universities receiving federal student aid to disclose data about campus crime and public safety.
“The structure of MSU's Clery compliance function, which has been housed within the university's Office of the General Counsel since its inception, also contributed to the violations and weaknesses identified during the review in multiple ways,” the report said.
It said the university “substantially failed to implement a minimally adequate Clery Act compliance program.” It added, “In or around 2010, the university did attempt to establish a rudimentary Clery Act compliance program. It elected to have a member of the general counsel staff serve as the Clery Act coordinator, in addition to other, unrelated legal duties.”
The coordinator had no expertise and no training, the report said. Among other reforms, it recommended the school hire a full-time Clery coordinator and adequately train the person.
During the investigation, longtime university general counsel Robert Noto was replaced by Robert Young, a former chief justice of the Michigan Supreme Court. Noto received a $436,000 severance deal.
“The university's persistent failure to take swift and decisive action to detect and stop Nassar's two-decade long predatory and abusive behavior indicates a lack of institutional control, especially in light of the credible information reported to institutional officials at several points over many years,” the report said. “This failure, alone, clearly demonstrates the institution's most serious administrative impairments.”
MSU Acting President Satish Udpa released a statement saying, “The safety and well-being of our campus community is our top priority. The Nassar crimes caused so much pain to so many people, and we have more work to do to address those issues and support the survivors and our community. We welcome the opportunity to work with experts to review and strengthen areas as we renew our commitment to improve.”
In its statement, the school said it has made “several proactive improvements to our Clery Act compliance efforts,” and would cooperate with the Department of Education on other reforms.
The report made clear that the university could still face a stiff penalty, even after making the required compliance changes.
MSU is working on a written response to the Department of Education that could take several months, according to spokesperson Emily Guerrant. The U.S. will wait for MSU's response before issuing a final report.
The report said the violations date back to 1997 and “involve victims, many of whom were minors at the time of the abuse, who reported these incidents to trusted adults, including coaches and athletic trainers.”
It noted 11 “representative sample of incidents” involving students' complaints against Nassar to various school officials. But no one took action to stop Nassar.
Nassar, who was also a USA Gymnastics doctor, was sentenced last year to what effectively is life in prison after pleading guilty to counts of criminal sexual misconduct. He was accused of sexually abusing hundreds of women under his care.
The school agreed to pay over $500 million to settle federal court suits brought by the victims.
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 AllFormer Rutgers Law School Dean Replaces Hoffman as University General Counsel on Interim Basis
4 minute readAs Student Workers Unionize in Droves, NLRB Tries to Prevent Colleges' Privacy Concerns From Slowing Momentum
5 minute readDemise of Chevron Deference Likely Played a Major Role in Successful Title IX Challenges, Experts Say
4 minute readHarvard Hires Ex-Defense Department GC as Legal Chief at Tumultuous Time
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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