UPDATE: This article has been updated to reflect when Michigan State athletic director Alan Haller learned of the identity of the complainant in the Title IX case.
The upcoming hearing in the sexual harassment case against Michigan State University football coach Mel Tucker was supposed to have taken place weeks ago.
It was originally scheduled for the week before the start of the 2023 college football season. But Tucker and his lawyer managed to push the matter back to early October, emails show – during the team’s bye week.
Tucker is accused of making unwanted sexual comments and masturbating during an April 2022 phone call with Brenda Tracy, a prominent rape survivor and activist he had hired to educate his team about sexual violence prevention. Tucker denied the allegations and said he and Tracy had consensual “phone sex.”
Michigan State suspended Tucker without pay on Sunday, hours after a USA TODAY investigation uncovered the allegations. His contract shows that he was making $750,000 a month without pay until his suspension, meaning he had received at least $6 million since the college’s investigation began.
The timing of the hearing, like the timing of the suspension, is among the many questions that arise following the College’s action.
USA TODAY investigation: Michigan State football coach Mel Tucker is accused of sexually assaulting a rape survivor
Rebecca Leitman Veidlinger, the outside attorney for the state of Michigan hired to investigate Tracy’s December 2022 Title IX complaint, concluded her investigation on July 25, according to case documents Tracy shared with USA TODAY. A day later, the school’s hearing director scheduled the hearing for August 22nd and 23rd.
Tucker’s attorney, Jennifer Belveal, said in emails that she was not available on any of those dates. The hearing administrator then proposed ten dates in September, all on weekdays.
Only on one of those days did things not work out for Tracy and her attorney, Karen Truszkowski, the emails show. However, Tucker and Belveal said they could not be reached by any of the other nine people, according to an Aug. 3 email from the hearing administrator.
Tucker and Belveal said they would be available the first week of October – the team’s week off after its first five games. The hearing was ultimately scheduled for October 5th and 6th.
A call and voicemail to Belveal’s cellphone went unanswered. Tucker hung up earlier when a reporter reached him on his cell phone.
Although Michigan State policy states that decisions in cases are typically made within 60 days of the investigation, hearing administrator Katie Bylenga granted Tucker and Belveal’s extension requests due to scheduling conflicts and the need for additional time to review the 1,200 side acts take place.
The policy also states that investigations are generally completed within 90 days of a formal complaint being filed. In Tracy’s case, the investigation took 216 hours – largely because Tucker didn’t meet with the investigator for three months while he and Belveal tried to stop the investigation.
The East Lansing campus, as well as universities across the country, has long experienced delays in Title IX cases. At one point in the 2019-20 school year, the average case at Michigan State took 361 days from report to resolution — about twice as long as guidelines require. A review of the cases in spring 2022 found fewer issues with timeliness.
Tucker criticized the school’s investigation in an emailed statement Monday, calling the hearing a “sham” for the campus leader to demand payment of the remaining roughly $80 million from the 10-year contract he signed in November 2021. wanted to avoid.
“This ‘hearing’ process was clearly designed for student transgressions – and not for personal, private acts between adults where the disclosure of intimate details has implications for a person’s reputation and career,” Tucker wrote. “I have no intention of allowing Ms. Tracy’s character assassination to go unsolved.”
Tracy responded with a statement of her own, saying that Tucker’s statement was “just more of the same DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender), distraction, victim blaming and lies that I have been dealing with for months now.”
“Coach Tucker has been delaying and trying to stop the investigation process from the beginning,” Tracy said. “He cannot afford to go to a hearing that will determine the credibility of the parties involved. I believe that with this statement he is trying to avoid attending the hearing.”
What is likely to happen at the hearing?
As with informal litigation, hearings in campus sexual harassment cases are intended to provide both parties with an opportunity to ask questions of the other and any relevant witnesses before a neutral mediator.
They do not constitute a repeat of the factual investigation in which a separate investigator interviews the parties and their witnesses and examines documentary evidence such as telephone records, emails and text messages. Instead, that investigator summarizes the evidence in a written report that is already available to both parties and can be used at the hearing.
At the hearings, which usually take place virtually, only the parties’ advisors – in this case their lawyers – are allowed to ask questions. They conclude with a written report from the resolution officer determining whether it is likely that the accused student or employee violated school policy.
Tucker said in his statement Monday that the “ridiculously flawed” hearing gave him no chance to explain his case or present solid evidence of his innocence. But Tucker had more than seven months to provide evidence during the investigation. In addition, both sides were given the opportunity to present their cases in writing after a draft investigative report was completed, which Tucker and his attorney did.
Tucker also claimed that his case was not being handled under Title IX, a federal law that requires schools to address sexual harassment if it meets certain criteria, such as if the incident occurred on campus or as part of a school program or activity. However, Michigan State policy uses a broader definition of sexual harassment and also includes conduct not covered by Title IX. It provides virtually the same procedures for both, university spokesman Dan Olsen told USA TODAY.
Michigan State policy does not require Tucker to answer questions or appear at the hearing, nor can it compel evidence or testimony. Refusal to answer questions cannot be used against him, but could affect the resolution agent’s ability to fully understand the facts.
If parties refuse to submit to cross-examination, their prior statements may still be used to assess their credibility. Tucker made numerous statements to Veidlinger that her investigative findings were not credible, USA TODAY reported in its investigation. His statement Monday also contradicted his previous statements to the investigator.
Because there are no eyewitnesses or recordings, sexual misconduct cases often suggest that the account is more credible. Tucker’s contradictory statements could swing the case in Tracy’s favor, said Ann Olivarius, a Title IX attorney who initiated a landmark lawsuit in 1977 that first enshrined sexual harassment in law as a form of sex discrimination.
Tucker could avoid the hearing if he reaches an agreement with the school first, Olivarius said. But Michigan State should “be very careful about offering him a payout” given his history of mishandling sexual abuse allegations against Larry Nassar, the disgraced campus doctor who is effectively serving a life sentence. Nassar is accused of sexually abusing more than 300 women and girls under the guise of medical treatment.
“You should go after this guy,” Olivarius said. “As a consultant with experience in this area, I would never advise them to pay him at all. I would say, ‘Do it.’ Sue us.’”
How did USA TODAY come up with the story?
Brenda Tracy briefed a USA TODAY reporter on the case in May 2023. Tracy had known the reporter since 2017 from his previous reporting on sexual misconduct in sports and disclosed details of the case confidentially.
In late June, Tracy agreed to give USA TODAY exclusive access to the case files to write an article on the condition that the news organization wait to publish until the case is over. It was important to her to let the process take its course, she said. But given the high profile of the case and the fact that the school has a history of mishandling sexual misconduct cases, she said she wanted a backup plan in case details become public sooner.
USA TODAY agreed not to publish the story until Tracy gave the go-ahead.
“I voluntarily shared documents with USA Today so that my story could be written and published after the school process was completed, but also in the event my name was leaked — which it did,” she said in a statement Wednesday.
Regarding the release of my name to the media without my consent and the timing of publication of the USA Today column, I would like to offer some context and background information… pic.twitter.com/lhnB1AQkSI
– Brenda Tracy (@brendatracy24) September 13, 2023
Why did USA TODAY just publish the story?
Rumors of sexual harassment allegations against Mel Tucker had been circulating for months before USA TODAY’s investigation first publicly revealed the details.
In both July and August, Michigan State Title IX officials informed Tracy and her attorney, Karen Truszkowski, that local and national media had contacted campus officials to inquire about sexual harassment allegations against Tucker and public records requests for documents on the case, Tracy told USA TODAY Show in emails.
Although the school did not comment and declined requests citing privacy concerns, a deputy Title IX coordinator at Michigan State sent an email to Tracy and Truszkowski on Aug. 24 warning that a news story could be imminent.
Olsen, the spokesman, said that in sexual harassment cases, such notices from the school to complainants are also sent to respondents.
In early September, USA TODAY Network reporters in Michigan heard Tracy’s name and specific details about the case mentioned in connection with the rumors. They passed the information to USA TODAY without identifying their sources, and USA TODAY passed the information to Tracy.
Believing that someone at Michigan State University had leaked her name, Tracy gave USA TODAY permission to publish the story on September 10.
“I didn’t want to publish my story in the early hours of the morning last weekend, but I had no choice because someone outed me to the media,” she said in a statement on Tuesday. “I am angry that my right to confidentiality has been violated and hope that those responsible are held accountable.”
Dianne Byrum, who sits on the college’s board of trustees, has called for an investigation into the possible leak.
“I am disturbed and outraged by recent reports that the name of a plaintiff in a sexual harassment investigation was intentionally released, apparently with the intent to retaliate against her,” Byrum said in an emailed statement Wednesday Explanation. “We must do everything in our power to ensure that victims of sexual assault and abuse can come forward without fear or intimidation and have the confidence that their identities and private information will be kept confidential.”
Why was Tucker suspended after the story came out?
Hours after the story was published, Michigan State interim president Teresa Woodruff and athletic director Alan Haller held a press conference announcing Tucker’s suspension.
They said they first learned the details of the allegations from the USA TODAY story. They suspended Tucker without pay pending the outcome of the case, later citing his unprofessional behavior as the reason.
Woodruff, Haller and the board of trustees knew that a Title IX complaint had been filed against Tucker shortly after Tracy filed it in December 2022, but only Haller disclosed Tracy’s identity, Olsen said. The others only knew that the complainant was a third party, Woodruff said in an interview with the Lansing State Journal. Woodruff learned that Tracy was the complainant at a meeting with the university’s legal counsel in July, the month the investigation concluded.
In Title IX cases, it is best practice to inform the accused employees’ supervisors of the existence of an investigation against them, but withhold the details, Olivarius said. Ideally, building a firewall between the Title IX office and an accused employee’s supervisors prevents them from manipulating the case.
Had the university suspended Tucker at the start of the case, it would have drawn significant attention to the case, which victims don’t always want. However, Olivarius believes that the school had grounds to suspend him early in the process because he admitted to masturbating on the call and Tracy’s business relationship with the school was already established.
“The central fact he admitted,” Olivarius said. “This is as black and white as it gets.”
Woodruff said the school handled the case properly.
“This morning’s news may sound like MSU of old. That wasn’t the case,” Woodruff said. “This is not because an independent, unbiased investigation has been and continues to be conducted.”
Kenny Jacoby is an investigative reporter for USA TODAY, covering sexual harassment and violence and Title IX. Contact him by email at [email protected] or follow him on X @kennyjacoby.