Federal judge tosses former football players' lawsuit against University of Minnesota


The U absolutely needs to retain the ability to suspend or expel any student that violates the student code of conduct, at its own discretion, using the minimum legal burden of proof for evidence.

The players were throwing up a Hail Mary in their accusations, hoping somehow that they could strip this ability away from the U by throwing out the race card.

I for one am glad the judge has struck this down.
 



Rochelle, you are a terrible journalist.

Factual errors and omissions on my first read through:

She accused up to 20 of assault, not 12.
The SMSS hearing did not allow presentation of the most important evidence of all - the videos.
The hearing process did not allow each player their own time, rather lumping then together in a block format - a violation of their own procedure.

Take some time and learn about the pros and cons of the U’s process.

The lawsuit was a long shot from the beginning as short of hard evidence one cannot prove racism or discrimination and as far as the defamation too soon to gauge long term issues/damages. Besides, this wasn’t a racism issue - a dumb angle to take. Discrimination...probably but again hard to prove. Their best bet was probably to find the U didn’t follow their own procedure to the letter in terms of the appeal, panel makeup, etc. Plenty to take issue with....
 


Color me surprised, look who wrote this hit piece. She bends over backwards to not say that 5 of the accused were cleared by the system that is monumentally stacked against them. And then her throw-away last line should be a fireable offense.
 

Bottom line: if you value being a student at the University of Minnesota, do NOT jeopardize that by violating the student code of conduct.

No matter how anyone here tries to twist the truth, the students violated it.
 

Bottom line: if you value being a student at the University of Minnesota, do NOT jeopardize that by violating the student code of conduct.

No matter how anyone here tries to twist the truth, the students violated it.

That’s not really the issue, is it? But I’m sure you know that.
 

I remember all the people on this board claiming that the U was going to be paying out millions of dollars to these players. It is funny how so many people assume that anytime someone files a lawsuit that the plaintiff will get millions of dollars. When the reality is, the vast majority of cases never reach near a million dollars or are thrown out of court, like this case.
 



I remember all the people on this board claiming that the U was going to be paying out millions of dollars to these players. It is funny how so many people assume that anytime someone files a lawsuit that the plaintiff will get millions of dollars. When the reality is, the vast majority of cases never reach near a million dollars or are thrown out of court, like this case.

Nobody was saying that. It’s extremely hard to get something close to justice in these cases, just as it is with sexual assault or a myriad of other crimes and social ills.
 


I remember all the people on this board claiming that the U was going to be paying out millions of dollars to these players. It is funny how so many people assume that anytime someone files a lawsuit that the plaintiff will get millions of dollars. When the reality is, the vast majority of cases never reach near a million dollars or are thrown out of court, like this case.

I thought that some of these guys could get money. But not on a discrimination suit.
I think some of them could have grounds for a case on a release of private data issue.
 




Nobody was saying that. It’s extremely hard to get something close to justice in these cases, just as it is with sexual assault or a myriad of other crimes and social ills.

Yes - plenty of people are this board were saying that.

The U did get justice. The players didn't have a case.
 

Color me surprised, look who wrote this hit piece. She bends over backwards to not say that 5 of the accused were cleared by the system that is monumentally stacked against them. And then her throw-away last line should be a fireable offense.

"Two of the players remain with the team"? Antoine Winfield and Seth Green, correct?

Or are you talking the final paragraph:

The players have claimed the woman initiated the sexual encounters involving five Gophers players and an underage recruit. That differs dramatically from the graphic investigative report that was leaked to the media. That report extensively describes numerous men taking turns assaulting the woman as others cheered and watched.

Which is accurate. The report did say that and it does differ dramatically from the players' version. Which was part of the point of the lawsuit.

The lawsuit was a long shot from the beginning as short of hard evidence one cannot prove racism or discrimination and as far as the defamation too soon to gauge long term issues/damages. Besides, this wasn’t a racism issue - a dumb angle to take. Discrimination...probably but again hard to prove. Their best bet was probably to find the U didn’t follow their own procedure to the letter in terms of the appeal, panel makeup, etc. Plenty to take issue with....

Agree 100% with the bolded statement. They had no chance of winning any other way. The problem is, if they found the U didn't follow their procedure, I'm willing to bet they would have only made the U retry ensuring the procedure is followed, and nobody wanted that. I doubt they ever would have gotten a payout on that basis.
 
Last edited:

"Two of the players remain with the team"? Antoine Winfield and Seth Green, correct?

Or are you talking the final paragraph:



Which is accurate. The report did say that and it does differ dramatically from the players' version. Which was part of the point of the lawsuit.

This is intentionally misleading to paint Winfield and Green as guilty of sexual assault. Especially since she painstakingly avoided stating that 5 players were cleared of wrongdoing. It's disgusting.
 

Yes - plenty of people are this board were saying that.

The U did get justice. The players didn't have a case.

Simple no to the first. I don’t remember anyone saying it was a slam dunk case.

To the second, as Bob Lawlaw says there was zero justice in this case. If they are guilty of actual sexual assault rather than a misunderstanding or lack of communication or what have you then they got off really easy. If the girl is making it up to save face or for some other motive we’re not aware of then she should be punished. The actual truth could be anywhere from the extremes of that spectrum or somewhere in between. There was no justice here. None of which absolves the U for having a riduulously slanted and unfair investigatory and appeals process.
 

I remember all the people on this board claiming that the U was going to be paying out millions of dollars to these players. <b>It is funny how so many people assume that anytime someone files a lawsuit that the plaintiff will get millions of dollars. </b>When the reality is, the vast majority of cases never reach near a million dollars or are thrown out of court, like this case.

I thought the U should pay money to them - however, not for the reason you stated. Not even close. Maybe you are the one making wrong assumptions here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

That’s not really the issue, is it?

Brush aside that they committed the offense, in the first place? No

At the end of the day, as you noted, they went for a payday with their case, not the most likely avenue to succeed.

Makes me wonder if, had they just been given the chance to re-earn their place in school and on the team, maybe even resurrect their chances in the NFL, with hard work and public apologies, would they have actually gone through with that? Or would they have rather gone for the easy route? Seems like the latter ...
 

I agree with this

I thought that some of these guys could get money. But not on a discrimination suit.
I think some of them could have grounds for a case on a release of private data issue.

These students lawsuit against the University was never going to take off or have grounds that would allow the case to proceed.
If anything they might have had a civil case against President Kaler because he went public with a statement he should have not made that Saturday night of the Boycott.
The only other angle was to pursue defamation cases against the head of the EEOC lady, who violated due process in the investigation, and Hubbard the parent company of KSTP and the journalist that heavily reported on the story for the release of private data. The only other angle would have been against the accuser which would have opened up a whole other can of worms.
I never thought they would get any money from the University but I thought they had opportunity to go after KSTP for some possible data privacy violations. Problem is one of the students that was part of the group leaked documents to reporters there so that was likely the only one the other's might have had a grievance against, the player Bufford that leaked the documents.
 

Absolutely. KTSP published a private internal document that contained private info about students.

And they did it for profit. No other motive.
 

the player Bufford that leaked the documents.

Pure speculation and, IMO, most likely wrong. When something like this happens it is usually best to ask yourself who benefitted from the release of the document? Certainly wasn’t Buford.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

I don't think it was Buford

Pure speculation and, IMO, most likely wrong. When something like this happens it is usually best to ask yourself who benefitted from the release of the document? Certainly wasn’t Buford.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think it was Buford but it was speculated on this site in those long threads that it was either Buford or Djam that leaked the EEOC suspension letter to KSTP. I would think it was more likely one of the youngest guy's like one of the Freshman.
 

None of which absolves the U for having a riduulously slanted and unfair investigatory and appeals process.

You might not like it but this does absolve the U.

Keep beating the it’s an unfair process drum all you want but the formers players aren’t getting a dime from the U.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:


Simple no to the first. I don’t remember anyone saying it was a slam dunk case.

To the second, as Bob Lawlaw says there was zero justice in this case. If they are guilty of actual sexual assault rather than a misunderstanding or lack of communication or what have you then they got off really easy. If the girl is making it up to save face or for some other motive we’re not aware of then she should be punished. The actual truth could be anywhere from the extremes of that spectrum or somewhere in between. There was no justice here. None of which absolves the U for having a riduulously slanted and unfair investigatory and appeals process.

I recall otherwise. Not looking to wrangle, but there were quite a few claiming the U would be paying out big coin.
 

I don't think it was Buford but it was speculated on this site in those long threads that it was either Buford or Djam that leaked the EEOC suspension letter to KSTP. I would think it was more likely one of the youngest guy's like one of the Freshman.

None of the players benefitted from the leak. None of them could have expected a positive outcome from doing so. Keep looking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

You might not like it but this does absolve the U.

Keep beating the it’s an unfair process drum all you want but the formers players aren’t getting a dime from the U.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Something can be legal and still unsavory, wrong, or immoral.

Again, I don’t personally recall anyone saying they had a great legal case. There are so many cases of people misstating past facts and exaggerating (it’s a culture thing) that I’m skeptical but I’ll leave room for being wrong. I’m human.

Despite not having a great case the university should be embarrassed by its process and continue to make changes in the interest of fairness, integrity, justice, and non-discrimination.
 

None of the players benefitted from the leak. None of them could have expected a positive outcome from doing so.

Probably correct.

Regardless, that the private internal info was leaked and was then published, is not he fault of the U.
 

Despite not having a great case the university should be embarrassed by its process and continue to make changes in the interest of fairness, integrity, justice, and non-discrimination.

What changes would you suggest, towards the first three? The EOAA process hasn’t discriminated against any race, sexual orientation, etc. that I’m aware of.
 




Top Bottom