Lawsuit filed



Just to save some clicks

"Nine Gophers football players caught up in a 2016 sexual misconduct investigation are suing the University of Minnesota for racial and gender discrimination.

The lawsuit, filed Friday in federal court, asserts that the university trampled the rights of the accused football players, all black males, during an investigation into an alleged gang rape of a female student in 2016."

The 9 players are not named.
 

I can't help but hope the players don't accept a settlement (but in these cases, the Universities often offer one), as then we would finally be able to see actual evidence in a trial illustrating how fair or unfair the University's version of due process actually is.
 

I can't help but hope the players don't accept a settlement (but in these cases, the Universities often offer one), as then we would finally be able to see actual evidence in a trial illustrating how fair or unfair the University's version of due process actually is.

Is it in the best interest of the U to settle?
 


This thread should be fun. Cruze copy/paste of EOAA guidelines incoming...
 


I don't really see a way they could win, unless there is damaging information that is not public. The U will want this to go away quickly so they could probably get a decent settlement out of it.
 

9 Football Players Suing U of M for Racial,Gender Discrimination in Sexual Assault...

Investigation

Nine University of Minnesota football players involved in an investigation into sexual assault allegations at the University of Minnesota in 2016 are now suing the school in federal court.

Court records show the players, all African American, allege "racial and gender discrimination; intentional, willful, and malicious misconduct; and deliberate indifference."

A female student accused several Gopher football players of sexual assault in September, 2016. After a police investigation, the Hennepin County Attorney's Office declined to press criminal charges. However, 10 players were initially suspended, leading to a highly-publicized bowl game boycott and eventually a coaching change.

Via KSTP: http://kstp.com/news/9-football-pla...n-sexual-assault-investigation/4941777/?cat=1
 



I don't really see a way they could win, unless there is damaging information that is not public. The U will want this to go away quickly so they could probably get a decent settlement out of it.

Well, the non-public stuff is really the point. There have been many cases like this around the country where plaintiffs have succeeded.
 

universities are the new Catholic Church for attorneys. That 500 million walk away money from MSU was fuel to the fire.
 

They need to conclude this one way or the other as soon as possible and move on. I am sure there are many lessons learned.
 

Well, the non-public stuff is really the point. There have been many cases like this around the country where plaintiffs have succeeded.

Kaler continuously referring to the accuser as the "victim" in public interviews that were broadcasted everywhere before the process was complete, but after the players' names were made public will certainly not help the U's case
 



I don't know what will happen.
I don't have all of the info.
 

I don't really see a way they could win, unless there is damaging information that is not public. The U will want this to go away quickly so they could probably get a decent settlement out of it.

More often than not, there is. Looks like the attorney specializes in these types of cases. Air Force experience focused on prosecution of sexual assaults.
 

Cruze arrogantly kept on making posts to the effect of "where are all those lawsuits?"

Well.....
 

Kaler continuously referring to the accuser as the "victim" in public interviews that were broadcasted everywhere before the process was complete, but after the players' names were made public will certainly not help the U's case

That won't help, but the legal points will probably be more nuanced than that. Things like, did the committee assume accuser testimony was more credible than that of the accused, were they given adequate opportunity to challenge accuser testimony and evidence presented against them, etc..

Those are the areas where Universities are on thin ice, someone makes an accusation and while they claim they start with a presumption of innocence, their policies effectively start from a de-facto presumption that the accusation is true, and thus don't provide adequate opportunity for defense. For example, protecting an accuser from cross-examination because it can force them to relive the event basically presumes the event actually happened from the get go. If you start from a presumption of innocence, cross-examination of an accuser presents no such conflict.
 

In my opinion, the U will look to settle this quickly. They are in a really difficult situation. Because of the current culture on college campuses, especially surrounding things like the EOAA office, they are in for a huge internal battle if they don't settle and instead lose a decision. If they lose, there will be an essential mandate for them to significantly alter how they handle these types of cases. That alteration, even if mandated, will trigger an explosive response from the progressive elements on campus (which include large sections of their faculty and student population).

If they lose a decision, the U will be in for an incredibly long (and impossible) process of trying to balance the EOAA, Title IX, with the court's ruling. Additionally, with the bizarre comments (from a legal standpoint) made by Kaler and Coyle, this would be an absolute horrible hill to die on for the U.

If they settle, everyone goes on with their day and Emperor keeps walking around with his new clothes.
 

They will win and they should win. The U botched how they handled it every step of the way. Will settle out of court.
 


True this.

Both systems kind of deserve it though, right? These comments seem to imply that it's akin to ambulance chasing for situations like the Catholic Church lawsuits, MSU, and other horrid situations. I could have read the implication wrong, but isn't it a good thing that these entities are getting their feet held to the fire?
 

Well, the non-public stuff is really the point. There have been many cases like this around the country where plaintiffs have succeeded.

Some plaintiffs have succeeded. Most of them won because the accused student either didn't get to see the evidence against them, the school didn't follow their procedures, or a panel was not allowed to make their own determination -- none of those would apply here. If you read the U of M policy and procedures for this type of situation there are specific steps there to provide these right to the accused. There could certainly be other areas where they focus their lawsuit. I think Pacyga outlined some of them in his public statements defending Lynch ie the training provided to the panel. So it may be a little premature of me to say they won't win, but they are going to need something good. Kaler calling the girl a "victim" from the get-go is going to help the players (I've said all along that he shouldn't have done that, and really should have abstained from saying much publicly about the whole situation), but that alone isn't going to be enough to win. Might help draw out a few extra dollars in the settlement though. My guess is the focus will be on the head of the committee (can't remember the name), and possibly Kaler himself.
 

Do we know if any of the nine players are currently still enrolled and officially on the football team? If so, could this lawsuit put in jeopardy their continued time on the football team. I guess I am specifically wondering if Antoine Winfield Jr could be a part of this lawsuit.

I don't know much, but I know if you are an employee suing your employer you won't be working their for long. I assume the same would be true of an athlete suing the school they are attending?
 

In my opinion, the U will look to settle this quickly. They are in a really difficult situation. Because of the current culture on college campuses, especially surrounding things like the EOAA office, they are in for a huge internal battle if they don't settle and instead lose a decision. If they lose, there will be an essential mandate for them to significantly alter how they handle these types of cases. That alteration, even if mandated, will trigger an explosive response from the progressive elements on campus (which include large sections of their faculty and student population).

If they lose a decision, the U will be in for an incredibly long (and impossible) process of trying to balance the EOAA, Title IX, with the court's ruling. Additionally, with the bizarre comments (from a legal standpoint) made by Kaler and Coyle, this would be an absolute horrible hill to die on for the U.

If they settle, everyone goes on with their day and Emperor keeps walking around with his new clothes.

What did Coyle say that could compromise the U? Kaler certainly did by repeatedly calling her a victim. I mainly remember Coyle doing his classic "I'm going to say a bunch of things that really mean nothing at all, policy this, procedure that, yada yada", but nothing specific.
 

Some plaintiffs have succeeded. Most of them won because the accused student either didn't get to see the evidence against them, the school didn't follow their procedures, or a panel was not allowed to make their own determination -- none of those would apply here. If you read the U of M policy and procedures for this type of situation there are specific steps there to provide these right to the accused. There could certainly be other areas where they focus their lawsuit. I think Pacyga outlined some of them in his public statements defending Lynch ie the training provided to the panel. So it may be a little premature of me to say they won't win, but they are going to need something good. Kaler calling the girl a "victim" from the get-go is going to help the players (I've said all along that he shouldn't have done that, and really should have abstained from saying much publicly about the whole situation), but that alone isn't going to be enough to win. Might help draw out a few extra dollars in the settlement though. My guess is the focus will be on the head of the committee (can't remember the name), and possibly Kaler himself.

I suggest you read the filed lawsuit document...
 

Both systems kind of deserve it though, right? These comments seem to imply that it's akin to ambulance chasing for situations like the Catholic Church lawsuits, MSU, and other horrid situations. I could have read the implication wrong, but isn't it a good thing that these entities are getting their feet held to the fire?

I think it's more that for every MSU there are ten others where the situation isn't nearly as bad, but with the big dollars MSU paid out lawyers will go crazy over the potential of those types of cases. The lawyers are really the real winners in many of these situations. I don't what cut the law firm gets in the MSU settlement, but there's no doubt it works out to a huge payday. When Jameis Winston's accuser settled her lawsuit with FSU (and the police department as well, I believe) her lawyer got more money from it than she did.
 



Both systems kind of deserve it though, right? These comments seem to imply that it's akin to ambulance chasing for situations like the Catholic Church lawsuits, MSU, and other horrid situations. I could have read the implication wrong, but isn't it a good thing that these entities are getting their feet held to the fire?

No, I agree with you 100%. This definitely isn't a hot cup of McDonald's coffee in the crotch kind of situation.
 

What did Coyle say that could compromise the U? Kaler certainly did by repeatedly calling her a victim. I mainly remember Coyle doing his classic "I'm going to say a bunch of things that really mean nothing at all, policy this, procedure that, yada yada", but nothing specific.

Kaler was certainly the bigger issue.

Coyle, as the AD, should not have talked so much about things like improving the character of the team, "living in truth", etc. At that time, while Gopher football players were accused of sexual assault, an assault they denied, it's a bad look.

His press conference when he fired Claeys should have been something like "I want to thank Tracy for all that he has done here, but we decided to go in a new direction." It should have been vanilla as possible. It's difficult to listen to Coyle speak in the time between the bowl game and the hiring of Fleck and not come out of it with the impression that he didn't believe the players. He is entitled to that opinion, personally, but when you're their AD. . . it's trouble to verbalize it publicly.
 




Top Bottom