Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.

1 Filed 07/31/24 Page 1 of 75

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

MELVIN GENE TUCKER II,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, TERESA

K. WOODRUFF, ALAN HALLER, and
BRIAN QUINN, each an employee and
member of the Administration of Michigan Case No. ______________
State University sued in their individual
capacities jointly and severally; DIANNE
BYRUM, DAN KELLY, SANDY PIERCE,
KELLY TEBAY, DENNIS DENNO, RENEE
KNAKE JEFFERSON, BRIANNA T. SCOTT,
and REMA VASSAR, each a member of the
BOARD OF TRUSTEES of Michigan State
University, sued in their individual capacities,
jointly and severally,

Defendants.

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 07/31/24 Page 2 of 75

Table of Contents
I. NATURE OF THE ACTION .................................................................................................. 1
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ........................................................................................... 10
III. THE PARTIES ...................................................................................................................11
A. Plaintiff ..............................................................................................................................11
B. Michigan State University ................................................................................................ 12
C. The Administration Defendants ........................................................................................ 12
D. The Trustee Defendants .................................................................................................... 17
IV. MSU ADMINISTRATION UNDER SIEGE .................................................................... 19
A. The Larry Nassar Scandal ................................................................................................. 20
B. January 2018: The “Outside the Lines” Report Regarding Misconduct in MSU Athletic
Programs ................................................................................................................................... 21
C. September 5, 2019: The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights Issues a
Report Criticizing MSU’s Leadership and Handling of Harassment Allegations .................... 23
D. October 2022: The Resignation of President Stanley and the Continued Failure to
Properly Administer the University’s Sexual Misconduct Procedures ..................................... 24
E. November 2022: The Federal Government Opens Another Investigation of the
University’s Handling of Sexual Misconduct Claims ............................................................... 25
F. March 2023: The Quinn Emanuel Report Documents the Administration’s Interference
with the Investigation of Dr. Gupta........................................................................................... 26
G. October 2023: The Board Commissions Yet Another Investigation Concerning the
Board’s Alleged Failure to Comply with its Obligations .......................................................... 28
V. DEFENDANTS’ ACTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF .......................................................... 31
A. February 2020: Plaintiff Becomes One of the Highest Paid Coaches in College Football
31
B. November 2021: MSU Signs Plaintiff to a 10-Year Contract Extension.......................... 32
C. August 2021: Plaintiff and Brenda Tracy Begin a Private Personal Relationship ............ 33
D. November 2022: Tracy Contacts MSU’s General Counsel, Brian Quinn, To Complain
About Plaintiff .......................................................................................................................... 35
E. December 2022: Tracy Files an Administrative Complaint With MSU ........................... 37
F. Plaintiff’s Response to the Complaint .............................................................................. 38
G. MSU’s Flawed OIE Investigation ..................................................................................... 40
H. The Individual Defendants Were Apprised of Developments During the Investigation .. 42
I. Spring/Summer 2023: Tracy Violates the Confidentiality Policy by Disclosing her Claim
to the Media .............................................................................................................................. 43

ii
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.3 Filed 07/31/24 Page 3 of 75

J. September 10, 2023: The Media Reports on Tracy’s Sexual Misconduct Claims Against
Plaintiff Using the Confidential OIE Records Tracy Disclosed ............................................... 46
K. September 10, 2023: MSU’s Press Conference and Suspension of Plaintiff Without Pay
Despite the Ongoing Administrative Process and Lack of Hearing ......................................... 48
L. September 10, 2023: Statements by Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer .................. 52
M. September 11, 2023: Plaintiff’s Statement to the Media ............................................. 52
N. September 27, 2023: Defendants Terminate Plaintiff’s Employment Before Providing a
Hearing on Tracy’s Claims........................................................................................................ 53
O. October 2023: Plaintiff Obtains Text Messages That Tracy Failed to Provide to MSU .. 55
VI. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF .................................................................................................... 58
COUNT I .............................................................................................................................. 58
COUNT II ............................................................................................................................. 61
COUNT III ............................................................................................................................ 62
COUNT IV............................................................................................................................ 64
COUNT V ............................................................................................................................. 65
COUNT VI ............................................................................................................................ 66
COUNT VII .......................................................................................................................... 67
COUNT VIII ......................................................................................................................... 68
COUNT IX............................................................................................................................ 70
VII. RELIEF REQUESTED..................................................................................................... 71
VIII. JURY DEMAND .............................................................................................................. 72

iii
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.4 Filed 07/31/24 Page 4 of 75

Plaintiff, Melvin Gene Tucker II, by and through his undersigned attorneys, for his

Complaint against the Defendants Michigan State University (“MSU” or “the University”),

members of its Board of Trustees (the “Trustee Defendants”) and members of its administration

(the “Administration Defendants,” and together with the Trustee Defendants, the “Individual

Defendants”) states as follows:

I. NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This action arises from Defendants’ unlawful termination of Plaintiff’s employment

as head coach of the Michigan State Spartans football team in violation of his constitutional rights

to due process and equal protection, and in violation of Plaintiff’s employment agreement and other

rights under state law. By improperly weaponizing the University’s investigative procedures against

Plaintiff, the Defendants have caused, and continue to cause, Plaintiff to experience severe emotional

harm and suffering, and have caused hundreds of millions in damages. Moreover, the Defendants’

actions were calculated and intentional – they acted with actual malice and in willful disregard of

Plaintiff’s rights, thus warranting a significant award of exemplary and punitive damages.

2. As demonstrated herein, investigation after investigation of the University by

governmental and independent investigators has confirmed that, at the time of the Defendants’

unlawful acts against Plaintiff, the leadership of the University routinely engaged in serious acts of

misconduct, including manipulating and interfering with the University’s supposedly independent

administrative investigation processes – the same processes that the Defendants misused and

weaponized against Plaintiff.

3. The well-documented acts of misconduct, recounted in detail in multiple public

reports and statements, resulted in deep animosity and mistrust toward and between the

1
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.5 Filed 07/31/24 Page 5 of 75

administration’s top leadership – including Teresa Woodruff, Brian Quinn and Alan Haller (together

the “Administration Defendants”) – and the Board of Trustees leading to multiple resignations

(voluntary and forced) of administrators and Board members alike, many accompanied by blistering

accusations of wrongdoing and failures to properly administer and supervise the University’s sexual

harassment investigation process. Indeed, at the time of the illegal actions against Plaintiff, the

United States Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) had just opened yet another

investigation of the University’s investigative processes.

4. The toxic administrative environment described in the investigation reports, and in

the public statements of the leaders themselves, exposed a dysfunctional leadership operating under

siege – a leadership in which Trustees and members of the administration, including Woodruff,

Quinn, Haller, and members of the Board, cast aside their obligations under the University’s Bylaws

and under applicable law to act fairly and properly in administering the University’s investigative

processes, which had been the subject of public criticism for a decade. Instead, the Defendants

manipulated and misused those processes to advance their own interests in preserving their positions

and reputations while engaging in a course of bad faith conduct designed to decimate the career and

reputation of Plaintiff. In this, the Defendants were wildly successful.

5. As the OCR investigation of MSU ramped up, and as the upheaval in the University’s

administration played out publicly, Plaintiff became the subject of a purported claim of sexual

harassment. The claim was false and unfounded, and there was no basis for the University to even

exercise jurisdiction to investigate it. However, the Defendants, concerned about the claim becoming

public amid yet another federal investigation into the administration, and seeking to maintain tight

control over it for their own purposes, initiated and then pursued an unauthorized and deeply flawed

“investigation” of the purported claim. Defendants then manipulated the process to create a

2
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.6 Filed 07/31/24 Page 6 of 75

pretextual and false basis to terminate Plaintiff’s employment and to evade Defendants’ significant

financial obligation to Plaintiff which, at the time, was more than $80 million. The Defendants

ultimately terminated Plaintiff’s contract on transparently pretextual grounds without first providing

Plaintiff a hearing to confront the false accusation against him, as required under University rules

and as a matter of law, in gross violation of Plaintiff’s right to due process.

6. Moreover, the Defendants acted against Plaintiff on the basis of his race, destroying

the career of one of the most prominent and successful Black head coaches in college football. The

actions taken against Plaintiff stand in stark contrast to the manner in which the Defendants treated

his white counterparts who, in the face of far more serious allegations, had no such similar action

taken against them. Indeed, those coaches continued to coach at MSU with their careers and

lucrative compensation packages intact.

7. The Defendants not only wrongfully deprived Plaintiff of his contractual rights, but

Woodruff and Haller compounded the profound damage to Plaintiff by issuing public statements

regarding the allegations against him, that were false and defamatory, thus further destroying

Plaintiff’s reputation, his professional standing, and his livelihood. The Defendants’ conduct resulted

in profound economic and emotional harm to Plaintiff.

8. Why did the Defendants engage in such a brazen violation of Plaintiff’s rights and of

their obligations under the University’s rules and applicable law? There are three principal reasons:

(1) they acted against Plaintiff based on self-interest to preserve their positions and images; (2) they

acted against him to create a basis to evade the University’s substantial contractual obligation to him;

and (3) they acted against him because of his race.

9. In the aftermath of the Larry Nassar scandal and other well-publicized scandals and

investigations involving the University, Woodruff, Quinn and Haller were fearful that any accusation

3
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.7 Filed 07/31/24 Page 7 of 75

involving the University that became public – even one as unfounded as the claim against Plaintiff

– would subject the University to unwanted scrutiny and jeopardize their positions with the

University. In short, the Individual Defendants acted in their own self-interest to avoid the fate of

their predecessors who were dismissed or forced to resign in the aftermath of the Larry Nassar and

the other scandals involving the University, including its athletics programs. Plaintiff – a man with

an impeccable reputation and who had a long and promising career ahead of him – was the collateral

damage caused by the Defendants’ misguided effort to protect the University’s reputation and, by so

doing, preserve their image and positions at the top of the University’s administration.

10. Upon information and belief, the University’s General Counsel, Defendant Quinn,

with the support of Woodruff and Haller, initiated the investigation against Plaintiff by personally

encouraging the claimant, Brenda Tracy, to file a complaint with the University’s Office of

Institutional Equity (“OIE”). The OIE – a department of the MSU Office for Civil Rights and Title

IX Education and Compliance – is responsible for administering MSU’s Relationship Violence and

Sexual Misconduct (“RVSM”) program. Not only was this collaboration with the claimant and her

counsel outrageous (especially since, upon information and belief, they indicated to Quinn that they

were looking for a quick monetary settlement), but Quinn was fully aware that Tracy’s claim could

not properly be brought under the RVSM program, which only provides jurisdiction – what is

referred to in the rules as “coverage” – under very limited circumstances where the matter has a close

nexus to the University. Because Tracy was unaffiliated with the University (she was a one-time

vendor paid to give a single presentation to the football team) and her personal relationship with

Plaintiff did not involve the University, no such coverage existed. Plaintiff submitted unopposed

expert evidence by the specialist who literally wrote the template for the University’s RVSM policy

4
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.8 Filed 07/31/24 Page 8 of 75

confirming that the investigation was unauthorized. The Defendants, however, steadfastly ignored

the rules so that the University could retain jurisdiction and control over their improper investigation.

11. With the improper “investigation” in place, the Defendants then interfered in the

process to ensure that it reached its pre-determined outcome – the termination of Plaintiff and his

contract. In direct contravention of the RVSM rules that prohibit University officials from interfering

with what is supposed to be an “independent” investigation of the allegations, upon information and

belief, Quinn, as General Counsel, and Haller, in his role as liaison to the OIE, interfered in the

process in an improper effort to retain jurisdiction over Tracy’s claims.

12. Upon information and belief, the Administration Defendants personally collaborated

with Tracy and her counsel and with the OIE staff to develop a “factual record” designed to support

her false claim against Plaintiff. There also is evidence that several Board members – Defendants

Renee Knake Jefferson, Dianne Byrum and Brianna Scott – engaged in improper and unauthorized

discussions with Tracy and her counsel.

13. In addition, the Administration Defendants thwarted Plaintiff’s efforts to have the

OIE pursue critical information from Tracy. As a result, key evidence – text messages that Tracy

failed to provide during the OIE investigation, and which exposed her financial agenda and the falsity

of her allegations – were not considered as part of the OIE proceeding.

14. When these key exculpatory text messages were finally obtained independently by

Plaintiff’s counsel late in the investigatory process – but before a decision was rendered – Plaintiff’s

counsel immediately sent a letter to Woodruff and Quinn, and to each of the Trustee Defendants,

outlining the substance of that critical material, attaching copies, and requesting that they direct a

short pause in the process so that this newly discovered exculpatory evidence could be considered,

as required under the applicable rules. However, concerned that this new and exculpatory evidence

5
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.9 Filed 07/31/24 Page 9 of 75

would expose their improper actions against Plaintiff and undermine their efforts to terminate his

contract, the Defendants refused to pause the investigation to consider the key evidence, and instead

pushed the process toward its pre-determined outcome in clear derogation of Plaintiff’s rights. In

essence, the Defendants ignored and precluded the consideration of the very evidence that proved

the falsity of Tracy’s allegations.

15. Plaintiff was further prejudiced by Defendants’ pursuit of the unauthorized

investigation against him when, during the process, Tracy leaked over 1,200 pages of confidential

RVSM materials to the national news media. Shortly thereafter, on September 10, 2023, the

disclosure of highly personal and private information concerning Plaintiff’s relationship with Tracy

became the subject of a national media circus when USA Today published one-sided articles

adopting Tracy’s false allegations against Plaintiff, causing severe and profound damage to Plaintiff.

But the Defendants did not care about that. Instead, alarmed by the specter of a public rehash of the

University’s past scandals the Defendants decided – literally within hours of the release of the news

stories on September 10 – to immediately suspend Plaintiff without pay, without any regard to the

facts, due process and in violation of Plaintiff’s rights.

16. In doing so, Defendant Haller and Woodruff appeared together at a press conference

on September 10, 2023 and publicly defamed Plaintiff by claiming that there were some “new

developments” that justified this sudden disciplinary action against Plaintiff. But that was blatantly

false – the Individual Defendants had the “facts” concerning Tracy’s purported claim months

earlier – and the defamatory statements by Haller and Woodruff at this press conference severely

damaged Plaintiff’s reputation and professional standing. The timing of the Defendants’ actions

speaks for itself. It confirms that the actions taken against Plaintiff were a purely reflexive exercise

6
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.10 Filed 07/31/24 Page 10 of 75

in damage control, and were not based on any rational decision-making, let alone considerations of

fairness and due process to Plaintiff.

17. Later that same day, Michigan State Governor Gretchen Whitmer, who has the

statutory power to investigate and remove MSU trustees, added her voice to the media frenzy, issuing

a statement expressing sympathy with the false narrative orchestrated by Tracy and her contacts in

the media. Specifically, Governor Whitmer expressed “shock[]” and “disappoint[ment]” concerning

Tracy’s accusation, and stated that she “want[ed] answers” concerning MSU’s handling of Tracy’s

claim. One week later, despite the Defendant Haller’s and Defendant Woodruff’s public recognition

that they were required, under University policy and under basic concepts of due process, to provide

Plaintiff with a hearing before taking further action against him, the Defendants sent a notice of

intention to terminate Plaintiff’s employment agreement – without providing him the opportunity

to address Tracy’s claims at a hearing. This time, Defendant Haller tried to justify this action based

on “undisputed evidence” that had come to light. But as with their “new developments” claim trotted

out at the press conference suddenly announcing Plaintiff’s suspension without pay, Defendants’

contention was a transparently false pretext for their decision to terminate Plaintiff’s contract – a

decision that had been made months earlier when Defendants initiated their improper campaign

against Plaintiff. Ultimately, Defendants terminated Plaintiff on September 27, 2023 – just two weeks

after the outrageous and defamatory press conference.

18. Where was the Board of Trustees when all of this was unfolding? As shown herein,

the Board was severely compromised by in-fighting and by outright confrontation with Woodruff

and other members of the administration. Moreover, the then-Chair of the fractured Board –

Defendant Trustee Dr. Rema Vassar – accused other Board members of improperly communicating

with Tracy and her counsel during the purported investigation. At bottom though, the Trustee

7
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.11 Filed 07/31/24 Page 11 of 75

Defendants, like the Administration Defendants, were acting to protect their own interests, without

regard to their obligations under the Bylaws to act “in accordance with the law and [MSU’s]

internal policies and regulations” and their obligation to take “prompt action on urgent . . .

personnel matters necessary to the best interests of the University” and its personnel.

19. The Board’s failure to step in to protect Plaintiff from the improper and biased

investigation unleashed by Woodruff, Quinn and Haller is especially egregious, as the Board was

fully aware that Woodruff and the Office of General Counsel (“OGC”) led by Quinn had a track

record of improper conduct, including that they previously had been found to have acted

improperly in another high-profile investigation involving actions taken against Dr. Sanjay Gupta,

the former Dean of the University’s Eli Broad College of Business (also a man of color). Like

Plaintiff, Dr. Gupta was stripped of his position based on a claim that became the subject of an

OIE investigation.

20. Concerns about the way Dr. Gupta was treated caused the Board to engage the law

firm of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP (“Quinn Emanuel”) to investigate the Gupta

matter and issue a report. The investigation was vehemently opposed by Defendant Woodruff who

was primarily responsible for the actions against Gupta (and here, against Plaintiff). The Quinn

Emanuel report exposed severe dysfunction in the OIE investigative process, including, as

particularly relevant here: misconduct by Woodruff, and by the OGC under Quinn, in interfering

in the investigation, including by seeking to have OIE continue to pursue the investigation of Gupta

that OIE wanted to close; taking action against Gupta even before the administrative process

played out, thus raising due process concerns; and issuing public statements (by Woodruff) that

were damaging to Gupta’s reputation.

8
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.12 Filed 07/31/24 Page 12 of 75

21. The improper actions taken by Woodruff and by the OGC identified in the Quinn

Emanual report raised multiple red flags for the Trustee Defendants concerning the unfair and

improper process Plaintiff was being subjected to by the very same members of the administration

who had engaged in similar acts of misconduct. The Board of Trustees was required by law, and

under the Bylaws, to take action to ensure that Plaintiff was being treated fairly under the

University’s administrative processes. However, the Board did not do so. The Trustee Defendants

violated multiple obligations imposed on them as further recounted herein.

22. Not only did the Defendants trample upon Plaintiff’s rights to due process and his

contractual rights, but their actions against Plaintiff, who is Black, violated Plaintiff’s constitutional

right to equal protection. MSU’s firing of Plaintiff on purely pretextual grounds stands in marked

contrast to the University’s handling of public disclosures concerning other high profile MSU

coaches who faced accusations that included recruiting violations and a failure to adequately respond

to or address serious claims of violence and sexual abuse by members of their respective teams.

Unlike Plaintiff, who was suspended without pay and the subject of a press conference by the MSU

Athletic Director and Interim President within hours of media stories based on leaked information

and flimsy and transparently false grounds, MSU did not take anything close to similar actions

regarding allegations against those other coaches and their programs. Instead, they were allowed to

keep their contracts and bonuses and continue to coach at MSU.

23. Plaintiff seeks damages against Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for their

violation of his constitutional right to equal protection, and the Individual Defendants pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983 for their violation of his right to due process of law. In addition to Plaintiff’s

claims under federal civil rights laws, Plaintiff also seeks damages against MSU and the Individual

Defendants under Michigan state law for breach of contract, defamation, tortious interference with

9
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.13 Filed 07/31/24 Page 13 of 75

contractual rights, intentional infliction of emotional distress, aiding and abetting, and violations

of Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, MCL § 37.2202.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

24. This Court has federal subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1981 (racial discrimination based on denial of contractual rights) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(denial of due process and equal protection under color of state law) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331

and 1343. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1367.

25. In addition, this Court has jurisdiction over the claims against Defendant MSU

pursuant to its waiver of sovereign immunity and its consent to the jurisdiction of this Court.

Section IV(G) of the Amended Employment Agreement (“Employment Agreement”) entered into

by MSU (executed by Defendant Haller) and Plaintiff as of November 24, 2021, a copy of which

is attached hereto as Exhibit A states, in pertinent part as follows:

Governing Law; Consent to Jurisdiction. The laws of Michigan

(without giving effect to its conflicts of laws principles) govern all
matters arising under and relating to this Agreement. Each party
irrevocably submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Michigan
Court of Claims and the Federal District Court for the Western
District of Michigan for the purpose of any suit, action or proceeding
or judgment relating to or arising out of this Agreement or the
transactions it contemplates . . . Each party irrevocably consents to
the jurisdiction of any such court in any such suit, action or
proceeding and to the laying of venue of any such suit, action or
proceeding brought in such court. . . . and irrevocably waives any
claim that any such suit, action or proceeding brought in any such
court has been brought in an inconvenient forum.

26. The claims asserted by Plaintiff against Defendant MSU arise under and relate to the

Employment Agreement and MSU’s breach thereof.

10
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.14 Filed 07/31/24 Page 14 of 75

27. The Defendants’ conduct at issue in this action occurred in East Lansing, Michigan,

and thus venue is proper in this District.

III. THE PARTIES

A. Plaintiff

28. Prior to his illegal termination by the Defendants in September 2023, in violation

of federal and state law, Plaintiff Melvin Gene Tucker II was the head football coach of the MSU

men’s football team – one of the most prominent positions in intercollegiate athletics and, indeed,

in all of sports.

29. Prior to joining MSU in February 2020, Plaintiff coached football in college and at

the professional level for more than 20 years. Among other positions, Plaintiff was the defensive

coordinator for the University of Georgia, the defensive backs coach at Ohio State University

and for the University of Alabama, and the head coach at the University of Colorado. Plaintiff

also coached in the NFL, including as interim head coach for the Jacksonville Jaguars during the

2011 NFL season, and as the defensive coordinator for the Chicago Bears.

30. Plaintiff was universally considered to be a man of impeccable character, who has

had an exemplary career and performed at an extremely high level at every position. Based on

that performance, on February 12, 2020, MSU recruited Plaintiff from the University of Colorado

to be the head coach at MSU. After Plaintiff’s great success in his first season at MSU, the

Individual Defendants wanted to ensure he stayed there. In November 2021, MSU signed Plaintiff

to a ten-year, $95 million guaranteed contract extension pursuant to which Plaintiff became the

highest paid Black coach in college football history, and one of the highest paid coaches in all of

college football.

11
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.15 Filed 07/31/24 Page 15 of 75

B. Michigan State University

31. Defendant MSU is a public university formed by the Michigan State Legislature.

See MICH. CONST. art. VIII, § 5. Specifically, MSU was designated as a land-grant university by

the Michigan Legislature in 1863 to be the beneficiary of the endowment provided under the

Morrill Act (12 Stat. 503 (1862)), as supplemented by subsequent acts of the Congress of the

United States.

32. Pursuant to Article VIII, § 5 of the Constitution of the State of Michigan (“Michigan

Constitution”), MSU acts through its authorized agents and employees, including principally, the

members of its Board of Trustees, and its administrative staff, including its President, its General

Counsel and, as relevant here, its Athletic Director.

33. As set forth in further detail herein, MSU, through its administrative staff and Board

of Trustees, including the Administration Defendants (as defined) and the Trustee Defendants (as

defined), and acting under color of state law, developed and executed a plan to create a pretextual

basis to terminate Plaintiff’s Employment Agreement with the University, in violation of Plaintiff’s

rights under the U.S. Constitution and state law, and in violation of the express terms of the

Employment Agreement.

C. The Administration Defendants

34. Defendants Woodruff, Haller, and Quinn – the Administration Defendants – each

are sued herein in their individual capacities, jointly and severally.

(i) Defendant Woodruff

35. Defendant Teresa K. Woodruff, Ph.D., assumed the post of Interim President of

MSU on November 4, 2022, after the resignation of President Samuel Stanley, Jr. Prior to her

appointment as Interim President, Woodruff had served as Provost of the University since 2020.

12
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.16 Filed 07/31/24 Page 16 of 75

36. Woodruff served as Interim President until March 4, 2024, and is currently on the

faculty of MSU.

37. Prior to joining MSU, Woodruff was the Director of the Center for Reproductive

Science at Northwestern University. It is reported that she left Northwestern in 2020, two months

after a petition by Black, Latinx, Indigenous, LGBTQ+ and other students of marginalized

identities called for her removal. 1

38. Under authority provided under Article VIII, § 5 of the Michigan Constitution,

Woodruff served as the principal executive officer of MSU and as an ex-officio member of the

Board of Trustees. MICH. CONST. art. VIII, § 5

39. According to Article 4 of the MSU Board of Trustees Bylaws, as Interim President,

Woodruff, in exercising her duties as the principal executive of the University, had authority to

“exercise such powers as are inherent in the position in promoting, supporting, and protecting the

interests of the University and in managing and directing all its affairs” and was “responsible for

all business policies as heretofore enacted or modified or hereafter established subject to the

general policies established by the board.”

40. As set forth further herein, Woodruff, acting under color of state law, abused her

authority and violated the law by authorizing, developing and executing a plan to unlawfully

subject Plaintiff to an improper administrative proceeding and then to unlawfully terminate

Plaintiff for the purpose of advancing her interests in protecting her position and image and that of

MSU, and those of the other Defendants, and to deprive Plaintiff of his rights under the U.S.

Constitution, his rights under Michigan state law, and his contractual property rights under the

express terms of the Employment Agreement. Among other things, it is believed that during the

1
See https://dailynorthwestern.com/2020/05/07/campus/tgs-dean-teresa-woodruff-to-depart-for-msu-after-
25-years-at-northwestern-leaving-behind-a-mixed-legacy/.

13
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.17 Filed 07/31/24 Page 17 of 75

relevant period, Woodruff was actively campaigning to be appointed President of the University

and viewed the claim against Plaintiff as a potential impediment to her appointment.

41. Among other things, and as further set forth herein, Woodruff, acting under color

of state law, made knowingly false public statements expressly designed to mislead the public and

provide cover for her and the other Defendants’ illegal actions directed towards Plaintiff.

42. Additionally, upon information and belief, Woodruff actively communicated with

the other Defendants and actively implemented and approved the illegal and improper actions

directed towards Plaintiff and/or failed to take action to prevent the other Individual Defendants

from proceeding with such actions.

(ii) Defendant Haller

43. Defendant Alan Haller has been Vice President and Athletic Director of MSU since

September 1, 2021. Haller is a member of MSU’s senior administration and is responsible for all

aspects of management of the MSU Athletics Department, one of the most high-profile positions at

MSU.

44. According to the University’s website, Haller “works directly with campus

leadership in providing guidance to the department on a wide range of issues, including serving as

a liaison to the General Counsel’s Office [and] Office of Institutional Equity.”

45. As head of the MSU Athletics Department, Haller had responsibility for the men’s

football team and was directly responsible for overseeing and managing the University’s

relationship with Plaintiff, the head coach of the men’s football team.

46. As set forth in further detail herein, Haller, acting under color of state law, abused

his authority and violated the law by authorizing, developing and executing a plan to unlawfully

subject Plaintiff to an improper administrative proceeding and then to unlawfully terminate

14
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.18 Filed 07/31/24 Page 18 of 75

Plaintiff’s employment for the purpose of advancing his interests to protect his position and image

and that of MSU, and those of the other Defendants, and to deprive Plaintiff of his rights under

the U.S. Constitution and under the Michigan Constitution, his rights under Michigan state law,

and his contractual property rights under the express terms of the Employment Agreement.

47. Among other things, and as further set forth herein, Haller, acting under color of

state law, made knowingly false public statements expressly designed to mislead the public and

provide cover for his and the other Defendants’ illegal and improper actions directed towards

Plaintiff.

48. Additionally, as liaison to the University’s OIE, Haller was obligated to ensure that

Plaintiff was treated fairly and equitably in the University’s grievance process. As recounted

herein, Haller breached his obligations to do so. In addition, upon information and belief, Haller

actively communicated with the other Defendants and actively implemented and approved of the

illegal and improper actions directed towards Plaintiff and/or failed to take action to prevent the

other Defendants from proceeding with such actions.

(iii) Defendant Quinn

49. Defendant Brian Quinn is the Vice President for Legal Affairs and General Counsel

at MSU. According to the MSU website, Quinn provides legal advice and representation to the

University through its President, Board of Trustees, and administration on a broad array of legal

issues, including providing advice on all matters that have legal significance for the University.

50. As set forth in the MSU Bylaws, “the general counsel shall be appointed upon the

recommendation of the president and approval of the board and shall serve at the pleasure of the

president.” The Bylaws further provide that “[t]he general counsel shall attend meetings of

the board and render such professional services as are required by it and the officers of the

15
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.19 Filed 07/31/24 Page 19 of 75

University” and “shall have authority to execute all legal documents including those required for

purposes of litigation and/or court proceedings.”

51. As set forth in further detail herein, Quinn, acting under color of state law, abused

his authority and violated the law by authorizing, developing and executing a plan to unlawfully

subject Plaintiff to an improper administrative proceeding and then to terminate Plaintiff’s

employment for the purpose of advancing his interests in protecting his position and image, and

those of the other Defendants, and to deprive Plaintiff of his rights under the U.S. Constitution, his

rights under Michigan state law, and his contractual property rights under the express terms of the

Employment Agreement.

52. Among other things, upon information and belief, Quinn personally entered into

discussions with Tracy and her counsel and directed them to assert a claim with MSU in order to

trigger an unauthorized investigation against Plaintiff in violation of the University’s policies and

applicable law. This was done to create and maintain a vehicle to develop a false basis to take

action against Plaintiff.

53. Upon information and belief, Quinn, as General Counsel, was involved in all

aspects of the plan to unlawfully terminate Plaintiff’s Employment Agreement including:

authorizing and supporting the improper, flawed and biased investigation of Tracy’s claims;

authorizing the false and misleading public statements made by other Defendants; and developing

the false and pretextual basis MSU and the Individual Defendants advanced for their unlawful

termination of Plaintiff’s contract in September 2023.

16
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.20 Filed 07/31/24 Page 20 of 75

D. The Trustee Defendants

54. Pursuant to Article VIII, § 5 of the Michigan Constitution the “trustees of Michigan

State University and their successors in office shall constitute a body corporate known as the Board

of Trustees of Michigan State University.”

55. The Trustees are publicly elected by Michigan voters and have general supervision

over the University and its funds. The Trustees are thus public officials under Michigan law and

have special duties to the public associated with their respective positions.

56. The Board consists of eight members elected for staggered eight-year terms.

Members serve without compensation. MSU’s Board of Trustees consists of Defendants Dianne

Byrum, Dennis Denno, Dan Kelly, Renee Knake Jefferson, Sandy Pierce, Brianna Scott, Kelly

Tebay, and Rema Vassar (together, the “Trustee Defendants”) each of whom was a member of the

Board at the time of the unlawful conduct alleged herein.

57. The Governor of Michigan has statutory authority to investigate and remove a

Trustee “for gross neglect of duty or for corrupt conduct in office, or any other misfeasance or

malfeasance therein.” MCL § 168.293. The Governor has authority to appoint Trustees to fill

Board vacancies. MCL § 168.294.

58. Pursuant to the Michigan Constitution, the Board “shall have general supervision

of [the] institution and the control and direction of all expenditures from the institution's funds.”

MICH. CONST. art. VIII, § 5. Under the Board’s Bylaws, it “exercises the final authority in the

government of the University.”

59. The Trustee Defendants have the duty to ensure that MSU employees are treated

“in accordance with the law and [MSU’s] internal policies and regulations” and they can take

17
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.21 Filed 07/31/24 Page 21 of 75

“prompt action on urgent . . . personnel matters necessary to the best interests” of MSU. Board of

Trustees Bylaws, Art. VIII.

60. The Board has significant obligations with regard to the University’s financial

obligations to employees such as Plaintiff. The Bylaws specify that “[t]he Board, being

constitutionally vested with the general supervision of Michigan State University and the control

and direction of all its funds, recognizes a vital and crucial institutional responsibility to those with

whom it has financial transactions.” Id., Art. XI.

61. The conduct of the Trustee Defendants is further governed by a Code of Ethics and

Conduct, which requires the Trustees to uphold the Board’s role as the supervisory and

policymaking body of MSU, to properly evaluate the President, and to hold the President and the

administration accountable to the Board. The Trustee Defendants have established a Committee

on Audit, Risk and Compliance, which is required to review any violations and failure to comply

with federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations, and MSU policies.

62. Each of the Trustee Defendants, acting individually and together, under color of

state law, violated their obligations as set forth herein, by authorizing, developing and executing a

plan to unlawfully subject Plaintiff to an improper administrative proceeding and then to terminate

Plaintiff’s employment for the purpose of advancing their interests to protect their positions and

image and that of MSU, and those of the other Defendants, and to deprive Plaintiff of his rights

under the U.S. Constitution, his rights under Michigan state law, and his contractual property rights

under the express terms of the Employment Agreement.

63. Upon information and belief, each of the Trustee Defendants authorized all aspects

of the plan to unlawfully terminate Plaintiff’s Employment Agreement including: authorizing and

supporting the improper, flawed and biased investigation of Tracy’s claims; authorizing the false

18
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.22 Filed 07/31/24 Page 22 of 75

and misleading public statements made by other Defendants; and developing the false and

pretextual basis MSU and the Individual Defendants advanced for their unlawful termination of

Plaintiff’s contract.

64. At all relevant times herein, each of the Trustee Defendants was aware of a report

outlining significant deficiencies in the MSU grievance process, as well as improper conduct by

Defendants Woodruff and Quinn in interfering with the process in violation of the rules requiring

that the process proceed independently, without such interference. In addition, each of the Board

members was presented with evidence confirming that, as in past matters, the Administration

Defendants were engaging in improper conduct with regard to the investigation involving Plaintiff.

Pursuant to their obligations as set forth above, the Trustee Defendants were obligated to take

“prompt action” to protect Plaintiff’s rights to due process and to a fair and impartial process. The

Trustees failed to take any action to remedy the situation in violation of their obligations under the

Bylaws and under applicable law.

65. Not only did the Board fail to take action to protect Plaintiff, but according to a

recent investigative report, Defendant/Trustee Dr. Rema Vassar accused Defendant/Trustees

Jefferson, Byrum and Scott of improperly engaging in “outreach and communication with Brenda

Tracy and possibly her attorney either directly or through third parties.” Accordingly, it appears

that Trustees themselves were complicit in the improper actions against Plaintiff.

IV. MSU ADMINISTRATION UNDER SIEGE

66. The violations of Plaintiff’s rights by MSU and the Individual Defendants were

committed against the backdrop of numerous scandals involving the University, including one of

the most, if not the most, horrific sexual abuse scandals that has ever come to light in the United

States – the Larry Nassar scandal. In addition, during this period the University was the subject

19
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.23 Filed 07/31/24 Page 23 of 75

of multiple investigations by the federal government and by outside independent investigators

which exposed astonishing dysfunction in the relationship between the Board and the

administration, and clear acts of misconduct by Woodruff and Quinn, including, as relevant here,

in interfering and manipulating the University’s investigative procedures.

A. The Larry Nassar Scandal

67. As has been widely reported, MSU was found to have turned a blind eye to a

decades-long pattern of sexual abuse of female student athletes perpetrated by the disgraced MSU

Athletics Department physician Larry Nassar. Due to MSU’s failure to act, despite evidence of

misconduct and complaints from student athletes about Nassar’s sexually abusive acts, Nassar was

able to victimize hundreds of MSU students and members of the U.S. gymnastics team dating back

to 1997.

68. Nassar was finally terminated from his employment at MSU on September 20,

2016. In late 2017 and early 2018, after being found guilty of multiple counts of sexual abuse in

separate cases, Nassar was sentenced to over 100 years in prison. Shortly thereafter, on May 16,

2018, MSU reached a $500 million settlement with 332 of Nassar’s victims.

69. The Nassar scandal sent shockwaves throughout the State of Michigan and

beyond. MSU’s president at the time, Lou Anna K. Simon, resigned the same day Nassar was

sentenced in Ingham County Circuit Court. Shortly thereafter, MSU Athletic Director, Mark

Hollis (who presided over the MSU Athletics Department when Nassar was abusing patients

and athletes) resigned. Although it has not been alleged that Hollis had direct knowledge of

20
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.24 Filed 07/31/24 Page 24 of 75

Nassar’s conduct prior to Nassar’s arrest, it has been reported that at least six women alerted

Athletics Department staff about Nassar’s behavior, and no action was taken. 2

70. Other MSU administration and staff also were forced to resign in the aftermath

of the Nassar scandal.

B. January 2018: The “Outside the Lines” Report Regarding Misconduct in MSU
Athletic Programs

71. While the Nassar scandal was unfolding, MSU was rocked by another scandal,

this time involving its men’s football team and its longtime coach Mark Dantonio.

72. On January 25, 2018, the very same day that Hollis resigned in the aftermath of

the Nassar scandal, ESPN posted a report in its online magazine, Outside the Lines, entitled

“Michigan State Secrets Extend Far Beyond Larry Nassar Case” (the “OTL Report”). 3

73. The OTL Report includes allegations that “MSU's most-recognizable figures,

football coach Mark Dantonio and basketball coach Tom Izzo have had incidents involving their

programs.” Both Dantonio and Izzo are white.

74. With respect to Dantonio, the OTL Report states that “[s]ince Dantonio’s tenure

began in 2007, at least 16 MSU football players have been accused of sexual assault or violence

against women, according to interviews and public records obtained by Outside the Lines. Even

more, Dantonio was said to be involved in handling the discipline in at least one of the cases

several years ago.”

2
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/tech/2018/01/18/msu-president-told-nassar-complaint-
2014/1042071001/.
3
See https://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/22214566/pattern-denial-inaction-information-suppression-
michigan-state-goes-larry-nassar-case-espn.

21
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.25 Filed 07/31/24 Page 25 of 75

75. On or about February 3, 2020, stories began to surface in the media regarding

evidence submitted in a federal lawsuit in which Dantonio previously had been named, alleging

that Dantonio knowingly engaged in various recruiting violations. 4

76. Dantonio quickly announced his resignation as head coach of the MSU football

team on February 4, 2020. MSU’s then-Athletic Director Bill Beekman called the allegations of

recruiting violations “patently false,” but said that MSU was investigating the claims.

77. Although Dantonio resigned, he was not suspended or terminated from his

employment at MSU. Instead, he was allowed to continue as an advisor in MSU’s Athletics

Department and was allowed to retain a $4.3 million bonus payment he had received only weeks

earlier in contemplation of his continuing as MSU’s head football coach.

78. Moreover, after wrongfully suspending Plaintiff without pay and then terminating

Plaintiff’s employment as alleged herein, MSU, on September 10, 2023, re-hired Dantonio as an

associate head coach of the men’s football team. 5

79. The OTL Report also referenced the MSU men’s basketball program and disclosed

“never-before-publicized reports of sexual or violent incidents involving members of Izzo’s storied

basketball program, including one report made against a former undergraduate student-assistant

coach who was allowed to continue coaching after he had been criminally charged for punching a

female MSU student in the face at a bar in 2010. A few months later, after the Spartans qualified

for the 2010 Final Four, the same assistant coach was accused of sexually assaulting a different

female student.” OTL Report.

4
See, e.g., https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2020/02/04/mark-dantonio-steps-down-michigan-state-
coach-amid-allegations-recruiting-violations/; see also https://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports/college/michigan-
state-university/2020/02/18/michigan-state-spartans-mark-dantonio-violate-ncaa-rules/4798101002/.
5
See, e.g., https://www.freep.com/story/sports/college/michigan-state/2023/09/16/mark-dantonio-michigan-
state-harlon-barnett-coach-brenda-tracy-mel-tucker-scandal/70854237007/.

22
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.26 Filed 07/31/24 Page 26 of 75

80. According to the OTL Report, federal civil rights investigators found that a

“sexually hostile environment existed for and affected numerous students and staff on campus,”

and that MSU's “failure to address complaints of sexual harassment, including sexual violence, in

a prompt and equitable manner caused and may have contributed to a continuation of this sexually

hostile environment.” Id.

81. In response to the OTL Report, then-Interim President John Engler called it a

“sensationalized package of reporting” and though he noted MSU would review the reports, he

defended the coaches, Dantonio and Izzo, stating that he hoped “that MSU can respond in full and

affirm the integrity and probity that has been the hallmark of these two respected coaches.”

82. On March 19, 2021, during a nationally televised NCAA Tournament game, in a

heated exchange Izzo physically grabbed one of his players, Gabe Brown, as the team headed into

the locker room. 6 Izzo laughed off the physical encounter after the game.

83. Upon information and belief, MSU did not investigate Izzo’s physical altercation

with Brown or take action against Izzo. Izzo remains head men’s basketball coach at MSU to this

day.

C. September 5, 2019: The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights

Issues a Report Criticizing MSU’s Leadership and Handling of Harassment
Allegations

84. In February of 2018, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights

opened an investigation of the University’s Title IX compliance regarding the employment and

conduct of Nassar. A September 5, 2019, report issued by the OCR (“OCR Report”), was deeply

critical of the University and its leadership. 7

6
See, e.g., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p9ywXDlQno.
7
See https://msu.edu/ourcommitment/_assets/documents/OCR-MSU-Agreement-2019.pdf.

23
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.27 Filed 07/31/24 Page 27 of 75

85. Specifically, after discussing the University’s history of failing to properly

administer its Title IX procedures, the OCR Report found that the University “failed to promptly

and equitably respond to reports and grievances alleging sexual harassment . . . and failed to

take appropriate actions reasonably calculated to end harassment, eliminate the hostile

environment, and prevent the harassment from recurring.” The OCR Report contains

significant findings concerning improper conduct by the University’s administration, including

that “Administrators at the highest level of the University—the President and the Provost—had

a long and disturbing history of failing to take any effective actions to address what was to

become, over the course of 14 years, a torrent of reports and complaint’s about [Dr. William

Strempel’s] sexually harassing conduct.”

D. October 2022: The Resignation of President Stanley and the Continued Failure to
Properly Administer the University’s Sexual Misconduct Procedures

86. In the aftermath of the Nassar scandal and the resignation of President Simon,

the University hired Samuel Stanley Jr. as University President. But Stanley resigned on October

13, 2022, citing severe dysfunction within the ranks of the University’s Board of Trustees,

including, as particularly relevant here, its failure to properly oversee the University’s sexual

harassment investigation procedures.

87. According to published reports, the acrimony between Stanley and the Trustees

(and among the Trustees themselves) stemmed from the failure of the University to comply with

certain Title IX compliance protocols in the aftermath of the Nassar scandal, including a

requirement that both the President and a Trustee sign an annual certification that they have

reviewed all Title IX reports involving sex-based misconduct allegations. Certain Trustees

accused Stanley of signing the certification without conducting a complete review of the matters.

24
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.28 Filed 07/31/24 Page 28 of 75

88. For example, Trustee Patrick O’Keefe stated publicly that Stanley failed to ensure

compliance with MSU offices investigating sexual misconduct. He called the submitted

certification document “false” and raised questions about leadership’s honesty and

integrity. O’Keefe was further quoted as saying “Numerous deficiencies were noted,” and “the

support for the certification (of compliance) was either non-existent or inadequate.”

89. Other Trustees responded emotionally to O’Keefe’s statements. According to a

published report, Trustee Brianna Scott, expressed her disagreement and, reportedly in tears, stated

that “she doesn’t trust some of her colleagues on the Board, sharing her frustration and occasional

desire to ‘break free.’”

90. The foregoing are just examples of the open hostility among the University’s

leadership over the way the University was handling or, more accurately not handling,

requirements and policies imposed to ensure that the University was properly administering its

sexual misconduct investigation procedures.

91. Moreover, the failures of the University’s leadership were also roiling the

University community at large. At or about the same time the Board and administration were

publicly feuding in the Fall of 2022, the MSU Faculty Senate, its Academic Congress, its

University Council and its Associated Students of MSU, all issued votes of no confidence in the

Board of Trustees over its failure to properly administer the University’s sexual harassment

programs.

E. November 2022: The Federal Government Opens Another Investigation of the

University’s Handling of Sexual Misconduct Claims

92. In or about November of 2022, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil

Rights opened yet another investigation into the University’s handling of sexual misconduct

25
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.29 Filed 07/31/24 Page 29 of 75

claims. According to published reports, OCR sent a letter to Woodruff seeking information

concerning the University’s handling of a sexual harassment claim, including whether the

University had improperly interfered with the claim. According to published reports, the letter

requested that the University provide copies of dozens of documents and communications relating

to the case. As alleged further herein, this federal investigation was opened at the very time the

Defendants learned of the claim by Tracy and began their improper and unauthorized investigation

of Plaintiff.

F. March 2023: The Quinn Emanuel Report Documents the Administration’s

Interference with the Investigation of Dr. Gupta

93. In 2022, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, the Dean of the University’s business school, was

stripped of his position by Woodruff (then University Provost) during a highly irregular OIE

investigation. The actions of Woodruff and others (including Quinn’s Office of General Counsel)

raised deep concerns regarding the way Woodruff and Quinn’s office improperly interfered in and

manipulated the University’s investigation of Gupta who, according to Woodruff, had failed to

report an act of sexual harassment.

94. At the time Gupta was stripped of his position, Woodruff was actively pursuing the

position of University President and it has been alleged that she viewed Gupta as a rival and

engineered a process to get rid of him. Gupta, who is a man of color (Indian American) has

commenced an action against Woodruff, Quinn, and others alleging multiple violations of his civil

rights, including disparate treatment based on his ethnicity. 8

8
Dr. Gupta sued MSU administrators, including Woodruff and Title IX officials, on February 24, 2023. See,
e.g., Alex Walters, Former Business Dean Sues Interim President, Top MSU Officials, The State News (Feb. 25, 2023),
https://statenews.com/article/2023/02/former-business-dean-sues-interim-president-top-msu-officials.

26
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.30 Filed 07/31/24 Page 30 of 75

95. On or about November 30, 2022, Trustee Patrick O’Keefe resigned from the Board

citing the University’s handling of its sexual harassment policies and called for “answers

regarding” the selection of Teresa Woodruff as Michigan State’s interim president who, as

Provost, had pushed for Gupta’s ouster.

96. Concerned about these allegations, and about the further upheaval roiling the MSU

leadership, in August 2022, the Board engaged the law firm of Quinn Emanual to investigate the

circumstances surrounding the actions taken by Woodruff and Quinn’s office against Gupta.

Woodruff vehemently opposed the investigation and reportedly sent a letter to the Board

demanding that it terminate the investigation. The Board denied Woodruff’s demand.

97. According to published reports, in December 2022, Quinn Emanual, in a 90-minute

closed door session, provided the Board with a verbal report of its investigation results, including

a detailed PowerPoint presentation of its findings.

98. Thereafter, on March 31, 2023, Quinn Emanual issued a report of its investigation

(the “Quinn Emanual Report”), which was made public by the Board. The Quinn Emanuel Report

exposed severe dysfunction in the OIE investigative process, including, as particularly relevant

here, that: (i) the OIE was not acting independently in violation of the University’s rules; (ii)

Woodruff and the OGC led by Quinn, improperly interfered in the investigative process, including,

as specifically relevant here, seeking to prevent OIE from closing the investigation of Gupta and

assisted the claimant in modifying her complaint; (iii) the University acted against Gupta even

before the administrative process played out, thus raising due process concerns; (iv) the

investigation against Gupta was sloppy and mistake prone and did not support the vast majority of

the actions taken against him; and (v) public statements issued by Woodruff were damaging to

Gupta’s reputation.

27
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.31 Filed 07/31/24 Page 31 of 75

99. As shown above, the Board was fully aware of the findings of Quinn Emanual while

the very same members of the administration – Woodruff and Quinn – were taking many of the

same improper actions against Plaintiff. The Quinn Emanual Report surely raised multiple red

flags with the Board concerning the way Woodruff, Quinn and Haller were improperly pursuing

Plaintiff and handling the allegations against him. However, the Board failed to intervene, in

violation of its obligations to Plaintiff under the University Bylaws and as a matter of law.

G. October 2023: The Board Commissions Yet Another Investigation Concerning the
Board’s Alleged Failure to Comply with its Obligations

100. The dysfunction infecting the Board continued even after the Quinn Emanual

investigation and Report. In October 2023 the Board commissioned yet another investigation, this

time by the law firm Miller & Chevalier Chartered, concerning the Board’s alleged failure to

comply with its obligations under the Bylaws and under applicable law, resulting in a February 28,

2024 report (the “Miller Chevalier Report”).

101. The investigation was prompted by accusations by Defendant Trustee Brianna Scott

that the then-Chair of the Board, Defendant Trustee Dr. Rema Vassar, violated various Board of

Trustees policies, including the Board of Trustees Code of Ethics and Conduct, the Board of

Trustees Bylaws, and the Board of Trustees Conflict of Interest Policy. Trustee Scott’s accusations

led to yet another round of in-fighting and counter-accusations by Trustee Vassar and others.

102. The Miller Chevalier Report provides a deeply troubling retrospective assessment

of the University’s fractured leadership during the time period at issue in this action, including

with respect to the actions taken against Plaintiff. Indeed, according to the Miller Chevalier

Report, Trustee Defendant Vassar – then the Board Chair – accused three Trustees, Defendant

Trustees Knake Jefferson, Byrum and Scott, of improperly interfering in the investigation of

28
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.32 Filed 07/31/24 Page 32 of 75

Plaintiff by engaging in “outreach to and communication with Brenda Tracy and possibly her

attorney either directly or through third parties.” The Miller Chevalier Report and the Quinn

Emanual Report, taken together, show a pattern of MSU leadership acting improperly in

connection with University investigations.

103. Moreover, the Miller Chevalier Report paints a picture of MSU leadership that is

so fractured and dysfunctional that it would be hard to believe if it were not so well-documented.

Among other things, recorded conversations among Trustee Defendants Vassar and Denno, and

representatives of student groups, document Vassar and Denno urging the students to use

information that Vassar and Denno provided to the students to publicly embarrass Woodruff and

other members of the administration.

104. In one such recorded conversation, Trustee Denno stated: “I think the trump card is

embarrassing them [referring to the administration]. They do not like to be embarrassed. The

Provost and Interim President [Woodruff] are looking for their next jobs; they just don’t want to

be embarrassed. They want to come out with no scandals.” Denno goes on to say that the best

way to embarrass them is by “press, media . . . They hate that. They hate being publicly

embarrassed.” Denno goes on to say: “embarrass [Woodruff] . . . tell her you’re working with the

Black Student Alliance, whether you are or not . . . that will terrify her.”

105. During that same recorded conversation, Trustee Vassar chimes in to advise the

students that “there’s so many other groups you could partner with to crucify her [Woodruff].”

Vassar then reinforces that leaks to the media are the “way to go.” According to Vassar: “Press is

the way to go. They smeared me in the press… So, if there is a mechanism, then that is the one.”

106. The references to Woodruff and other members of the administration being

concerned for their own interests – primarily protecting their jobs and avoiding public

29
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.33 Filed 07/31/24 Page 33 of 75

embarrassment – is fully consistent with the conduct at issue in this lawsuit which, as demonstrated

throughout, was largely motivated by the Defendants’ acting to advance their self-interest.

Moreover, that the Chair of the Board would advocate the release of knowingly false information

to the media to advance her interests – “tell her you’re working with the Black Student Alliance,

whether you are or not” – is a shocking example of reprehensible conduct by Defendant Trustee

Vassar and Defendant Trustee Denno that confirms that the Trustees have acted in violation of their

obligations under the Bylaws and applicable law and, indeed, in violation of any reasonable

standards of decency. The Miller Chevalier Report concludes that Trustees Denno and Vassar not

only were “condoning incivility and intimidation” but were also acting in express violation of their

legal obligations and fiduciary duties.

107. The Miller Chevalier Report goes on to document further dysfunction, including:

(1) leaks to the media by Trustees designed to embarrass and intimidate members of the

administration or other Trustees; (2) acts of bullying and retaliation by certain Trustees, including

by Vassar, which has created an environment of fear amongst administrators; (3) a “fraught

relationship between the administration and the Board of Trustees, resulting in the Board of

Trustees at times assuming an outsized role at the institution”; and (4) “a fractured Board plagued

by distrust and an environment in which colleagues no longer assume positive intent and often act

as adversaries.”

108. The issues plaguing the Board are so extreme that Miller Chevalier recommended

that the matter be elevated to Governor Whitmer for review pursuant to MCL Section 168.293,

which provides the Governor with the power to remove Trustees from office “for gross neglect of

duty or for corrupt conduct in office, or any other misfeasance or malfeasance therein.” Defendant

30
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.34 Filed 07/31/24 Page 34 of 75

Vassar resigned her position as Chair of the Board shortly after the Miller Chevalier Report was

published.

V. DEFENDANTS’ ACTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF

A. February 2020: Plaintiff Becomes One of the Highest Paid Coaches in College
Football

109. After the sudden resignation of Dantonio in February 2020, MSU conducted a

search and quickly hired Plaintiff as MSU’s head football coach.

110. In consideration of Plaintiff’s exemplary performance in the college and pro ranks,

and his impeccable reputation, Plaintiff’s initial contract at MSU, signed in February 2020, was

valued at $5.5 million annually for six years. At the time of signing, Plaintiff became one of the

highest paid head coaches in college football

111. As announced on the MSU website:

“In just his second year in East Lansing in 2021, Tucker led MSU to
an 11-2 record, a Top 10 ranking, and a win in the New Year’s Six
with a victory over ACC Champion and No. 12 Pittsburgh in the
Chick-fil-A Peach Bowl. Tucker was named a finalist for National
Coach of the Year by multiple organizations, including the
American Football Coaches Association, the Paul Bear Bryant
Awards, the Football Writers Association of America and the
Maxwell Football Club. He was also named the Big Ten Coach of
the Year by both the coaches and media and the AFCA Region 3
Coach of the Year. In June 2022, Tucker was named the College
Coach of the Year by the National Coalition of Minority Football
Coaches. Going from two wins in 2020 to 11 wins in 2021, MSU
completed the biggest turnaround in school history (previous: seven-
game improvement from 2016 to 2017) and finished the season
ranked No. 8 in the AFCA Coaches Poll and No. 9 in The Associated
Press Poll. Tucker became the earliest Spartan coach to win double-
figure games in a season (previous: Mark Dantonio with 11 wins in
his fourth season at MSU in 2010).” 9

9
https://msuspartans.com/sports/football/roster/coaches/mel-tucker/1059 (last accessed July 29, 2024).

31
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.35 Filed 07/31/24 Page 35 of 75

B. November 2021: MSU Signs Plaintiff to a 10-Year Contract Extension

112. In recognition of Plaintiff’s exceptional performance and impeccable reputation, as

well as the concern that Plaintiff might leave MSU for another position after the season, MSU

initiated discussions with Plaintiff in November 2021, during the football season, for a contract

extension that would pay Plaintiff more money and ensure he stayed at MSU for many more years.

113. Those discussions resulted in MSU and Plaintiff entering into the November 24,

2021 Employment Agreement establishing the terms and conditions of Plaintiff’s employment for

MSU. See Ex. A.

114. Pursuant to the Employment Agreement, Plaintiff was to continue in his position as

head coach of MSU’s Men’s Intercollegiate Football Team through January 1, 2032 – i.e., for what

the Agreement defines as a “ten-year term.” Ex. A, ¶ III(A). Plaintiff was to report to Defendant

Haller, who had been appointed as MSU’s Athletic Director several months prior to Plaintiff’s

contract extension, after a long tenure as MSU’s Deputy Athletic Director.

115. Pursuant to the Employment Agreement, Plaintiff was to be paid a “Base Salary”

of $5.9 million per year for each year of the ten (10) year term of the Agreement for his services

as head football coach, Ex. A, ¶ II(B), as well as “Supplemental Annual Income” and other

compensation for a total annual compensation package of approximately $9.5 million, plus the

substantial value of fringe benefits. The Agreement provides that the total compensation is

guaranteed, meaning that if the University terminates Plaintiff without cause, it is responsible to

pay the outstanding balance of compensation owed to Plaintiff.

116. Termination of the Agreement for cause is strictly limited by Section III(B) (Early

Termination; Damages), which provides as follows:

“(i) The university may terminate this Agreement prior to the

expiration of its term at any time, for cause, without liability to the

32
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.36 Filed 07/31/24 Page 36 of 75

Coach or any other penalty. Cause for such termination includes,

without limitation, the following: (a) the Coach materially breaches
this Agreement; (b) the Coach is convicted of a crime, other than a
minor traffic offense; (c) the Coach engages in any conduct which
constitutes moral turpitude or which, in the University’s reasonable
judgment, would tend to bring public disrespect, contempt, or
ridicule upon the University (e.g., material insubordination or
impropriety involving a student). Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary herein, the University shall not terminate the Coach for
cause unless the University has provided the Coach with written
notice, specifying the grounds for termination, and afforded the
Coach the opportunity to present reasons to the Athletic Director and
the University’s President ad to why he should not be terminated on
the grounds stated therein.”

117. As described further herein, Defendants improperly invoked the Early

Termination Provision to orchestrate the unjustified termination of the Employment Agreement

based on transparently false and pretextual grounds.

C. August 2021: Plaintiff and Brenda Tracy Begin a Private Personal Relationship

118. Brenda Tracy is the founder of Set the Expectation, an organization which,

according to its website, is a nonprofit organization dedicated to ending sexual and interpersonal

violence through prevention work with men, advocacy, and engagement with agencies serving

survivors and their families.

119. Tracy is not an MSU student nor is she an MSU employee. Rather, in or about July

2021, MSU contracted with Tracy to conduct an education training session at MSU for the men’s

football team on a single occasion – August 14, 2021 – concerning sexual misconduct prevention.

The contract specified a fee of $10,000 for that one-day program.

120. Following Tracy’s visit to MSU for the training program, Plaintiff and Tracy began

a consensual and deeply personal relationship. Although Plaintiff was married at the time, he had

been estranged and essentially separated from his wife for years. The relationship between

Plaintiff and Tracy involved mostly phone calls and text messages, including late-night phone
33
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.37 Filed 07/31/24 Page 37 of 75

conversations in which they discussed intimate matters. They had very limited in-person contact.

Plaintiff sent Tracy gifts, including a pair of Nike sneakers she had told Plaintiff she wanted, as

well as $200 to Tracy’s personal Venmo account. This personal relationship was entirely private

and did not involve Tracy’s limited one-time engagement for MSU or any other aspect of the

University.

121. Evidence obtained by counsel for Plaintiff after Plaintiff’s unlawful termination by

MSU – i.e., text message communications which Tracy did not disclose to MSU during the

investigation of her claims – demonstrates that Tracy was acutely focused on Plaintiff’s lucrative

November 2021 contract extension and hoped to convince Plaintiff to personally fund her business.

122. Specifically, in a text message on November 26, 2021, days after Plaintiff’s contract

extension with MSU was announced, Tracy wrote the following to her close friend, confidante and

business assistant, Ahlan Alvarado: “[Plaintiff] signed his contract. I cant [sic] even wrap my brain

around 95 million. Sheesh . . . Can you imagine around 700k going into your bank account every

month. Every month . . . We’re gonna make it happen . . . I’m gonna ask him to finance the doc

part of it . . . . He’ll do it.” Upon information and belief, the reference in the message to the “doc

part of it” was apparently to promotional literature involving Tracy’s organization.

123. Other texts that she did not disclose to MSU during the investigation of her claims

further indicate that Tracy was hoping to obtain money for personal expenses.

124. On April 28, 2022, during a lengthy evening phone conversation between Tracy

and Plaintiff that lasted 36 minutes, Tracy sent Plaintiff a provocative photo of the two of them

from behind in which she was wearing tight leather pants, to, according to Tracy, “lighten” the

conversation. Tracy only provided the photo to MSU after Plaintiff raised the issue to the OIE

Investigator.

34
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.38 Filed 07/31/24 Page 38 of 75

125. In the summer of 2022, Plaintiff became concerned that Tracy and/or her assistant

Alvarado were making false statements about Plaintiff’s marriage. Plaintiff confronted Tracy

about this in an August 2022 phone call. Their personal relationship soured, and Plaintiff

discontinued his contact with Tracy, thus ending Tracy’s ability to acquire money and gifts from

Plaintiff.

D. November 2022: Tracy Contacts MSU’s General Counsel, Brian Quinn, To

Complain About Plaintiff

126. Upon information and belief, unbeknownst to Plaintiff, in November of 2022,

Tracy, through her counsel, contacted MSU’s General Counsel, Defendant Brian Quinn, and

advised him that Tracy intended to pursue a sexual harassment claim against Plaintiff.

127. Upon information and belief, Tracy, through her counsel, told Quinn that she was

seeking a financial settlement without having to go to a hearing and inquired whether MSU would

make a quick payment to settle the claim.

128. Quinn did not immediately advise Plaintiff of the allegations being made against

him by Tracy. Instead, upon information and belief, Quinn immediately reported his conversation

with Tracy to MSU’s administration, including its President, Defendant Woodruff, its Athletic

Director, Defendant Haller, and to its then-Board members, the Trustee Defendants named herein.

129. As set forth above, at the time Tracy made her claim, the University’s leadership

was in turmoil. The Board and the administration were publicly trading accusations of

mismanagement and worse – of failure to comply with their respective obligations under the MSU

governing documents. Board members and key members of the administration had been resigning

amid caustic accusations and counter-accusations. Members of the University’s leadership openly

described a climate of mistrust and suspicion. In addition to this internal strife, Woodruff and

35
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.39 Filed 07/31/24 Page 39 of 75

Quinn had just learned that the U.S. Department of Education’s OCR had opened yet another

investigation of the University’s administrative processes concerning claims of sexual misconduct.

130. The dysfunction at the highest level of the University’s leadership resulted in a siege

mentality among the individual Board members and members of the administration, with each

member concerned primarily with protecting themselves and preserving their positions and their

careers.

131. In this toxic climate, the allegations made by Tracy set off alarm bells at the highest

levels of MSU’s administration – not because of the content of the allegations, but because if they

became public the news media would undoubtedly bring up MSU’s history of mishandling claims

involving its Athletics Department. Desperate to avoid that negative press coverage and public

attention (and how that might impact their positions), and without any interest in determining the

validity of Tracy’s claim – which was and is false – the Individual Defendants quickly devised a

plan to prevent the matter from becoming public and to establish a basis to terminate Plaintiff’s

contract.

132. Upon information and belief, the Defendants developed a plan pursuant to which

Tracy’s claim would become the subject of a confidential investigation pursuant to the University’s

RVSM Policy, which is administered by the University’s OIE. As set forth herein, the Individual

Defendants were fully aware that the RVSM process did not cover Tracy’s claim because the

conduct alleged involved a private relationship unrelated to the University. But the Defendants

wrongfully invoked the process in order to keep Tracy’s claim under wraps while the Defendants

determined how to deal with Plaintiff and the $80-plus million owed to him on his contract.

133. Upon information and belief, and in furtherance of the plan developed by the

Individual Defendants, in or about late November 2022, Quinn contacted Tracy’s counsel and

36
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.40 Filed 07/31/24 Page 40 of 75

advised that MSU would not make a financial settlement offer, would not apprise Plaintiff or his

counsel of the settlement inquiry, and that Tracy should instead file a claim pursuant to the

confidential RVSM Policy. Upon information and belief, Quinn specifically advised Tracy’s

counsel that if Tracy did not institute such a proceeding, MSU would do so on its own accord.

E. December 2022: Tracy Files an Administrative Complaint With MSU

134. On or about December 21, 2022, Tracy filed a formal grievance against Plaintiff

under the RVSM Policy (“Complaint”), as instructed by Quinn.

135. At the time Tracy decided to pursue her claim against Plaintiff she was in dire

financial straits. In a text message dated December 10, 2022 – eleven days before filing the

Complaint – Tracy stated that she “was down to $5.” Tracy did not disclose this text message to

MSU.

136. Moreover, the text messages Tracy did not disclose to MSU confirm that Tracy was

seeking a quick financial settlement. Specifically, on December 9, 2022, again, just eleven days

before filing the Complaint, Tracy wrote: “I’m filing a formal complaint with MSU… [My lawyer]

said after that we can let him know that we want to come to an agreement then it doesn’t have to

go to a hearing or anything unless he wants it to.” In an earlier message on September 1, 2022,

she stated that “[w]hen they do the money I should make him [referring to Plaintiff] pay me 10k

directly[.]”

137. The Complaint describes a personal relationship between Plaintiff and Tracy. It

alleges that during that relationship, Plaintiff and Tracy had several telephone communications –

all while both parties were away from the MSU campus. Tracy contended that on a number of

calls Plaintiff made unwanted comments of a sexual nature and, during a lengthy call on the

37
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.41 Filed 07/31/24 Page 41 of 75

evening of April 28, 2022, he masturbated against her consent and made inappropriate comments.

This was the 36-minute call referenced, supra, ¶ 124.

138. In or about late-December, 2022, Plaintiff was finally advised of Tracy’s claim at a

meeting called by Defendants Haller and Quinn and attended by Plaintiff and his counsel. Haller

essentially read the claims set forth in Tracy’s Complaint to Plaintiff.

139. What Plaintiff did not know (but Haller, Quinn and the other Individual Defendants

did know) was that, upon information and belief, Tracy had already contacted Quinn seeking a

quick financial settlement, a request that should have raised a red flag concerning the bona fides

of Tracy’s claims. But the “facts” were of little concern to the Defendants. All that mattered to

them was retaining RVSM jurisdiction over the claim so that they could preserve their options

concerning how to deal with Plaintiff and his contract.

F. Plaintiff’s Response to the Complaint

140. On or about, January 30, 2023, Plaintiff, through counsel, submitted a detailed

response (“Plaintiff’s Response”) to the Complaint. Plaintiff categorically denied the Complaint’s

allegations of misconduct. Specifically, Plaintiff denied that he ever made any unwanted

comments and denied Tracy’s characterization of their 36-minute April 28, 2022 phone call.

Instead, Plaintiff explained that he and Tracy had been involved in a consensual private

relationship and that the conduct Tracy mischaracterized as “unwanted” was consensual “phone

sex” between Tracy and Plaintiff. Plaintiff made the obvious point that, if the conduct was

unwanted, then Tracy could have easily terminated the phone call, but she did not do so because

she was consensually participating in the conduct—which occurred after she sent him the

provocative photo on that same call.

38
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.42 Filed 07/31/24 Page 42 of 75

141. Plaintiff’s Response also pointed out that, as a threshold matter, MSU was required

to dismiss Tracy’s claim because the allegations were not covered under the RVSM Policy and,

therefore, there was no jurisdiction for OIE to investigate the matter.

142. Pursuant to the RVSM Policy, the University’s Office for Civil Rights and Title IX

Compliance & Education (“MSU OCR”) must make an initial assessment of a claim including

whether “jurisdiction” or “coverage” exists. RVSM Policy §§ XII(A), (C). In order for there to be

coverage the alleged conduct must: (1) constitute sexual harassment or some other prohibited

conduct; and (2) have occurred on campus, off-campus in a University sponsored program or

activity, off-campus in a program or activity sponsored by a student governing body, or off-campus

and outside of a University-sponsored program or activity but which has continuing adverse effects

on the campus or on a University-sponsored program or activity. RVSM Policy § XII(E). A

complaint “must be dismissed if the conduct alleged does not meet all of the coverage

requirements” set forth in the RVSM Policy. RVSM Policy § XII(F)(1)(a).

143. Plaintiff’s Response pointed out that Tracy’s allegations did not come close to

meeting the criteria for jurisdiction. All the key interactions alleged in Tracy’s complaint—the

April 2022 call and the August 2022 call—failed to meet these two jurisdictional requirements

and, therefore, there was no coverage under the RVSM Policy. Specifically, as set forth in

Plaintiff’s Response, the alleged conduct—all of which constituted private phone calls away from

the University – did not occur in a University-sponsored program or activity, nor did it allege

prohibited conduct that has a continuing adverse effect on the campus or on a University-sponsored

program or activity.

144. Because of this fundamental defect, MSU was “required” to dismiss Tracy’s

Complaint. But rather than doing so, the Defendants, upon information and belief, continued to

39
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.43 Filed 07/31/24 Page 43 of 75

pressure the OIE to retain coverage of the matter under the RVSM policy and conduct an

investigation pursuant to that policy.

145. Upon information and belief, the Defendants, including Defendant Haller as liaison

to the OIE (a department within MSU OCR), were involved in the efforts to retain control over the

proceeding against Plaintiff and create a pretext for his termination.

146. Despite the lack of authority to even consider Tracy’s complaint, the Defendants

rejected Plaintiff’s jurisdictional arguments and MSU’s OIE initiated a purported “investigation”

of Tracy’s claims (the “OIE Investigation”) in early 2023 under the RVSM policy. MSU appointed

an OIE Investigator to conduct the investigation.

G. MSU’s Flawed OIE Investigation

147. Even after the opening of an OIE investigation the University is obligated to

continue to assess the issue of coverage and must dismiss a complaint if at any time it determines

that there is a lack of coverage. RVSM Policy § XII(F). The lack of a jurisdictional basis for the

investigation was pointed out repeatedly by Plaintiff throughout the RVSM process.

148. For example, through counsel, Plaintiff presented the OIE Investigator and

Defendant Quinn with an expert report by Brett Sokolow of TNG Consulting LLC. Mr. Sokolow

has been one of the preeminent experts in the field of university sexual misconduct investigations

for more than 25 years and has been involved in more than 1,000 school and campus sexual

misconduct cases as an investigator, trainer, consultant, expert, advisor, decision-maker, appeal

decision-maker, and Title IX administrator. Mr. Sokolow literally wrote the model policy and

templates on which some language in the RVSM Policy is based.

149. Mr. Sokolow concluded that MSU lacked jurisdiction over this private matter, and

that the efforts by the Individual Defendants to maintain coverage was unprecedented, stating that

40
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.44 Filed 07/31/24 Page 44 of 75

“[t]o my knowledge, no public university has ever attempted or succeeded in claiming such broad

jurisdiction for its policies and procedures.”

150. Quinn and the other Individual Defendants were repeatedly advised of the lack of

jurisdiction and that MSU was required by RVSM Policy § XII(F)(1) to dismiss Tracy’s complaint

and terminate the investigation. However, the Defendants refused to give up their unauthorized

“investigation” of Plaintiff. In addition to breaching their obligation to dismiss Tracy’s complaint

for lack of coverage, Defendants repeatedly violated other fundamental rights to which Plaintiff

was entitled as a matter of law and under the RVSM Policy.

151. For example, the RVSM Policy provides that Plaintiff was entitled to “equitable

treatment” in the Investigation and that “[a]ll procedures, rules, and practices adopted as part of

the formal grievance process [would] apply equally to both parties.” RVSM Policy § XIII(A)(2).

He also was entitled to a process free of “conflicts of interest and bias.” Id. § XIII(A)(6).

152. Additionally, under the Policy, Plaintiff was “presumed to be not responsible for

the reported conduct until a determination regarding responsibility is made at the conclusion of

the applicable formal grievance process.” RVSM Policy § XIII(A)(3). Plaintiff was entitled to

a hearing to determine such responsibility, at which Plaintiff was entitled “to ask the other party

and any witnesses all relevant questions and follow-up questions, including those challenging

credibility” and was entitled to conduct cross-examination “directly, orally, and in real time by the

party’s advisor of choice” RVSM Policy § XIII(C)(6) .

153. Moreover, RVSM rules impose substantial obligations on OIE to marshal evidence

and to allow for the consideration of newly discovered evidence. Indeed, even after a final

determination regarding responsibility has been made, the Defendants “must re-open the formal

41
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.45 Filed 07/31/24 Page 45 of 75

grievance process” to allow for consideration of newly discovered evidence. RVSM Policy §

XIII(G).

154. As demonstrated herein, the process imposed by the Defendants violated each one

of these rights and many others. For example, in addition to the fact that the claim should have

been dismissed immediately, the OIE Investigator engaged in improper ex parte discussions with

Tracy and her counsel, and the OIE Investigator refused to follow up on numerous factual issues

identified by Plaintiff’s counsel.

155. In addition, the OIE Investigator failed to pursue key evidence that would have

demonstrated the falsity of Tracy’s claims and which, if considered, should have resulted in the

dismissal of the matter. Indeed, the OIE Investigator permitted Tracy to submit certain text

messages and emails she had cherry-picked for production without requiring Tracy to produce her

full set of electronic communications with others, including her close friend and business assistant

Ahlan Alvarado, with whom she sent many text messages concerning Plaintiff and their

relationship. Plaintiff’s counsel repeatedly asked the OIE Investigator as well as Defendant Quinn,

to aggressively pursue all available evidence, but they did not do so.

H. The Individual Defendants Were Apprised of Developments During the

Investigation

156. The Defendants, including Quinn, Haller and Woodruff, were keeping close tabs on

the progress of the purported investigation of Plaintiff and, in fact, were specifically apprised of

developments by counsel for Plaintiff at various points in the investigation.

157. In addition, given the role of the Trustees, and Plaintiff’s high-profile position at

MSU, upon information and belief, Haller, Quinn and Woodruff reported on developments to the

42
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.46 Filed 07/31/24 Page 46 of 75

Trustee Defendants. Accordingly, the Individual Defendants were aware of the factual record in

the investigation as it was being developed.

158. By way of example, Defendant Quinn was copied on a lengthy May 22, 2023 letter

from Plaintiff’s counsel to the University’s OIE Investigator summarizing the facts elicited,

pointing out the numerous legal and procedural flaws in the investigation, and demanding that the

proceeding be dismissed.

159. In addition, Defendant Quinn was copied on lengthy and detailed correspondence

concerning the underlying proceedings on June 23, 2023, July 7, 2023 (two letters) and August 4,

2023.

160. Accordingly, the Administration Defendants had complete information concerning

the underlying investigation at least as early as the Spring of 2023. And crucially, based on this

information, the Individual Defendants were aware that that Plaintiff vigorously disputed Tracy’s

allegations including her description of the April 28, 2022, phone call as involving “unwanted”

sexual activity – the principal basis for the Defendants’ improper termination of Plaintiff’s

contract. As set forth in this correspondence and, indeed, from the outset of the improper OIE

Investigation, Plaintiff consistently explained that in the context of their private, personal

relationship they had engaged in consensual phone sex. Upon, information and belief, all of this

information was shared with the Trustee Defendants.

I. Spring/Summer 2023: Tracy Violates the Confidentiality Policy by Disclosing her

Claim to the Media

161. The University’s policies provide for confidentiality of the existence of an OIE

investigation, the facts and materials underlying any such investigation, and the participants in the

investigation (e.g., respondent, complainant, witnesses) to those outside MSU.

43
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.47 Filed 07/31/24 Page 47 of 75

162. First, the RVSM Policy clearly states that “[t]he University will seek to protect the

privacy of parties in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The University will keep

private the identity of any individual who has made a report or formal complaint of prohibited

conduct under this Policy; the identity of any claimant; the identity of any respondent; and the

identity of any witness.” RVSM Policy § IX.

163. In addition, RVSM Policy Hearing Procedures § III(D), provides the parties

electronic access to the case file, but expressly states that “[n]o copies may be made of the

information in the File, including taking pictures or screenshots.”

164. Despite these policies, at some point during the OIE Investigation, in the spring of

2023, information concerning the OIE Investigation was leaked to the press. The leaked

information became the basis for news reports several months later, as further discussed herein.

165. Because of the seriousness of this confidentiality breach, in September 2023 MSU

engaged the law firm Jones Day to investigate the source of the leak. Jones Day concluded that

there was clear evidence pointing to Tracy and her counsel as the likely source. Specifically, a

report issued by Jones Day in December 2023 (“Jones Day Report”) concluded that “Tracy

communicated some information related to her complaint against [Plaintiff] and/or the underlying

allegations to multiple media outlets . . .” 10

166. Text messages – which upon information and belief Tracy did not disclose to the

OIE Investigator – revealed that Tracy spoke with ESPN Reporter Dan Murphy about her

allegations in May 2023 while the RVSM Investigation was ongoing. In addition, other evidence

demonstrated that Tracy spoke to an unnamed reporter at ESPN. According to the Jones Day

10
Available at: https://msu.edu/-/media/assets/msu/docs/issues-statements/12292023-jones-day-report-of-
leak-investigation15389320126.pdf?rev=2168cf5b55d840ef834dce6f471e8bb4&hash=6DE49C6CE5C29B2D
C81EF989C40A9A1C.

44
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.48 Filed 07/31/24 Page 48 of 75

Report, a May 16, 2023 text message from Tracy states as follows: “I just talked to my new ESPN

reporter … I like him. He said they aren’t going to do anything yet. But obviously if they get

tipped off about other outlets or if [Plaintiff] does something they would need to cover it.… I told

him I understood the process and all that but that I’m also trying to get through the school process

without public input.”

167. Upon information and belief, Tracy’s communications to the media were the basis

for Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) requests to MSU by multiple media outlets issued in or

about July of 2023, specifically seeking information concerning a claim of sexual harassment

against Plaintiff.

168. When the FOIA requests became known to counsel representing Plaintiff in the OIE

Investigation, counsel immediately contacted MSU to demand an investigation into the source of

the leak, and to document the clear prejudice being done to Plaintiff and his ability to defend

himself in the already-flawed OIE Investigation process. Again, Defendants Quinn and Haller

were copied on this correspondence.

169. On two occasions – on August 2, 2023, and August 25, 2023 – Plaintiff, through

counsel, demanded that the Defendants implement measures to investigate the source of the leak

and ensure that there were no further breaches of the University’s confidentiality policies that could

result in Plaintiff’s identity becoming known to the public and prejudice to Plaintiff.

170. Defendants ignored Plaintiff’s requests to investigate the leak of information

regarding the OIE process. The Defendants’ failure to take immediate action in response to

Plaintiff’s request resulted in disclosure of further information to the media which caused severe

damage to Plaintiff as set forth herein. In fact, Defendants only initiated an investigation of the

leak on or about September 12, 2023 after Tracy complained.

45
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.49 Filed 07/31/24 Page 49 of 75

J. September 10, 2023: The Media Reports on Tracy’s Sexual Misconduct Claims
Against Plaintiff Using the Confidential OIE Records Tracy Disclosed

171. On September 10, 2023, the claims against Plaintiff became the subject of national

media attention when USA Today published an article entitled “Michigan State Football Coach

Mel Tucker Accused of Sexually Harassing Rape Survivor.” 11 This was the first media article

discussing Tracy’s allegations, which had not been publicly reported on because of the purportedly

confidential OIE investigation process.

172. The article discloses that Tracy had provided the press with a large portion of the

confidential OIE Investigation file, thereby undermining the confidentiality of the OIE

Investigation and the administrative process while it was pending and before any hearing.

Specifically, the article states that while USA Today “typically does not identify people who allege

sexual harassment . . . Tracy agreed to be identified and shared more than 1,200 pages of case

documents” with the USA Today reporter.

173. Not surprisingly given Tracy’s involvement in its publication, the USA Today

Article provided a one-sided description of the evidence that was designed to generate public

support for Tracy’s account and to inflict maximum damage to Plaintiff.

174. Indeed, within hours of the publication of the initial article, USA Today published

a follow up article entitled, “In The Michigan State Story, Brenda Tracy Is The Believable One.

Not Coach Mel Tucker.” 12 It is hard to imagine a more orchestrated and one-sided rendition of

the claims being alleged against Plaintiff. And it is worthy to note that, according to the author of

that article, he (the author) had known Tracy for several years.

11
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2023/09/10/michigan-state-football-coach-sexual-
harassment-claim/70679703007/
12
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/mike-freeman/2023/09/10/michigan-state-coach-mel-
tucker-isnt-believable-brenda-tracy-is/70818026007/.

46
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.50 Filed 07/31/24 Page 50 of 75

175. But the Defendants cared nothing about the damage being inflicted on Plaintiff, nor

about the deprivation of his right to a confidential and fair investigative process. Instead, the

Defendants were alarmed that that the USA Today articles once again made MSU’s history of

failing to properly deal with sexual abuse allegations the subject of national media attention.

Specifically, the September 10, 2023 USA Today article includes the following:

“Adding to the uncertainty, the institution tasked with sorting out

the facts [MSU] is perhaps best known for missing repeated
opportunities to stop one of the most prolific sexual abusers in
American history. For nearly two decades, Michigan State
leaders failed to act on complaints against Larry Nassar, the
disgraced former U.S.A. Gymnastics and campus physician
accused of sexually assaulting more than 300 female athletes
under the guise of medical treatments. He has been sentenced
to a minimum of 100 years in prison. Amid its efforts to rebuild
trust among students, employees, alumni and the East Lansing
community, Michigan State's leaders must now decide whether
the face of its prestigious football program is guilty of sexually
harassing one of the country’s most influential advocates against
gender-based violence.

176. Upon information and belief, the publication of the USA Today articles, and

specifically, its direct reference to the Nassar scandal and MSU’s history of failing to address

claims of sexual misconduct, raised alarms at the highest levels of the University.

177. Upon information and belief, Defendants Quinn, Woodruff, Haller and the Trustee

Defendants decided that swift action needed to be taken against Plaintiff in order to create the

impression that MSU, and the Individual Defendants themselves, unlike their predecessors (many

of whom were forced to resign in the aftermath of Nassar), were taking decisive action to address

a purported claim of sexual harassment. The Defendants decided that such action needed to be

taken even though the administrative process was still underway and even though Plaintiff had not

been afforded a hearing to address Tracy’s allegations, as he was entitled to under the RVSM

47
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.51 Filed 07/31/24 Page 51 of 75

Policy, and as a matter of law. Plaintiff’s rights to due process were simply not part of the MSU

agenda. As such, those rights were trampled.

K. September 10, 2023: MSU’s Press Conference and Suspension of Plaintiff Without
Pay Despite the Ongoing Administrative Process and Lack of Hearing

178. The immediate media frenzy caused by Tracy’s leak of confidential investigative

information had its desired effect. Within hours of the publication of USA Today’s initial article,

Defendants Woodruff and Haller appeared together at a hastily arranged press conference on

September 10, 2023 to announce that “with the support of University leadership” the Defendants

were suspending Plaintiff from his position of head coach of the men’s football team without pay.

179. Haller claimed that the decision to suspend Plaintiff was based on “new

developments” that had come to light. 13 However, when asked specifically by a member of the

media, “what changed to make you take action now given what you knew before?” Haller could

point to nothing. Instead, he responded: “Yeah Matt, we’re always evaluating, um, interim

measures were in place, and those interim measures have been updated. Initially there was no

contact with the complainant, and then also increased oversight from me of the program but also

the coach, so um it’s an ongoing process and we update those interim measures as we receive

information.” Id.

180. Haller’s non-response is a model of obfuscation and double-speak. In truth, there

was no “new development” beyond the facts the Individual Defendants knew about months earlier.

The only actual “new development” was that, due to no fault of Plaintiff (and in fact, due directly

to Tracy’s release of more than a thousand pages of confidential OIE investigative material to the

media), MSU’s history of mishandling claims of sexual misconduct was once again thrust into the

13
https://www.wzzm13.com/video/sports/local-sports/michigan-state-university-press-conference-
announcing-suspension-of-mel-tucker/69-adfba6d9-131b-4805-8a75-9477f7f66564.

48
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.52 Filed 07/31/24 Page 52 of 75

national spotlight. The fact that Plaintiff categorically denied Tracy’s contentions was irrelevant

as far as the Defendants were concerned.

181. Haller’s false public statement that there were “new developments” that supported

the University’s sudden decision to suspend Plaintiff without pay had a devastating effect on

Plaintiff, as it constituted a statement that “the leadership” of the University had a basis to believe,

based on new information, that Plaintiff had engaged in recent serious misconduct that required

the immediate “interim” measure of suspending Plaintiff without pay during the football season

and separating him from the football program.

182. In addition to Haller’s false contention that the suspension of Plaintiff was based

on “new developments,” Haller also stated repeatedly that the suspension was an “interim

measure,” that “the process was not complete” and that the “University’s objective has been and

remains focused on conducting a fair, thorough, and unbiased investigation, and allowing the

processes to play out.” He emphasized again, that “[t]he University’s formal conclusion of the

investigation will occur when final decision processes are complete. I want to emphasize again,

this investigation is not complete.”

183. Defendant Woodruff then took her turn at the podium. She stated at the outset that

the actions taken against Plaintiff “comes with the full weight of my support” and also thanked the

Board of Trustees “for their engagement with me today.” She then reiterated Haller’s reference to

“new developments” that came to light which “can impact the case and the community” and that

the decision “to place [Plaintiff] on an unpaid leave is equally necessary and appropriate for today’s

circumstances.” Woodruff stated that “[t]hese actions are not taken lightly, and I know AD Haller

is making them in support of the individuals impacted.” Thus, like Haller, Woodruff stated that

the “new developments” justified immediately separating Plaintiff from the football team.

49
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.53 Filed 07/31/24 Page 53 of 75

184. In obvious response to the USA Today article’s focus on MSU’s history of scandals

involving its athletics program, Woodruff stated that the allegations that were made public in the

media are not indicative of MSU reverting to the “MSU of old.” Specifically, Woodruff stated in

part as follows:

“In the MSU of today, when any report comes into the University,
it is appropriately and rigorously reviewed. In the MSU of today,
our investigative processes are fair and thorough. In the MSU of
today, in all cases, we continually review interim measures to
ensure appropriate actions are taken, so this morning’s news might
sound like the MSU of old. It was not. It is not, because an
independent, unbiased investigation is and continues to be
conducted. . . It is not the MSU of old because we maintain the
confidence of the claimant and the respondent, while respecting
the claimant and respondent’s right to share their story. It is not
because of the further action we take today.”

185. Like Haller, Woodruff emphasized that the “investigative process is not complete

and has not been referred to the [Athletic Director] or the University. That process will not be

complete until there is a hearing and a final decision.”

186. Woodruff’s statements were intended to give the appearance of a fair process for

Plaintiff when, in truth and in fact, the process was anything but fair and the outcome was

predetermined. And by drawing a distinction between the “MSU of today” and the “MSU of old,”

Woodruff lumped Plaintiff together with Nassar and his horrific conduct that MSU allowed to

persist. Woodruff’s association of Plaintiff and the “MSU of old” was a false characterization

designed to harm Plaintiff. In addition, Woodruff’s reference to “new developments,” her

statement that “we continually review interim measures to ensure appropriate actions are taken,”

and her reference to the purported “impact” of the alleged conduct, reinforced Haller’s false

contention that some new information created a basis to take such drastic and immediate action

against Plaintiff. Moreover, Woodruff’s repeated reference to the “MSU of today” and her attempt

50
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.54 Filed 07/31/24 Page 54 of 75

to create the impression that the University had moved past its scandal-plagued past, makes

unmistakably clear that the Defendants decided to prioritize protection of the University and the

Defendants themselves without regard to the rights of Plaintiff.

187. The statements by Haller and Woodruff that the investigation was not complete,

and that Plaintiff would be provided an opportunity to address Tracy’s claims at a hearing also

were knowingly false. As far as the Defendants were concerned, the so-called investigation was

over. Plaintiff was collateral damage in the wake of Defendants’ plan to protect the image of

MSU’s athletics program at his expense.

188. The public statements by Haller and Woodruff were all the more harmful coming

only hours after the publication of the USA Today article, as they conveyed that the Defendants

had a substantial basis to believe – before any hearing – (a) that Tracy’s account of the events set

forth in the article was true, and (b) that there was a basis to disbelieve Plaintiff’s contention that

none of the conduct alleged was unwanted and that it all occurred within the confines of a close

personal relationship and was fully consensual.

189. The public statements made by Haller and Woodruff which, upon information and

belief, were authorized by the other Individual Defendants – i.e., the “University leadership”

referenced by Haller and the Trustees referenced by Woodruff – were knowingly false and made

with flagrant disregard for the facts. In addition, they were made with actual malice and with the

intent to harm Plaintiff in violation of his constitutional, statutory, and contractual rights. Simply

put, Haller and Woodruff’s improper and unlawful actions on September 10, 2023 – done with

authorization and support from the University leadership – were devastating to Plaintiff’s reputation.

51
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.55 Filed 07/31/24 Page 55 of 75

L. September 10, 2023: Statements by Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer

190. On the evening of September 10, 2023, Governor Gretchen Whitmer issued a

statement demanding accountability with respect to Tracy’s claim against Plaintiff. Seemingly

taking Tracy’s false narrative at face value, Governor Whitmer issued the following statement:

“As a survivor, I’m shocked. As a Spartan, I’m disappointed. As Governor, I want answers . . . I

know the pain that so many feel when allegations like this come to light because I live it too. It’s

retraumatizing. MSU holds a special place in so many of our hearts—which is what makes this

hurt more.” The statement goes on to say: “We deserve to know when the university knew about

these allegations and why they made the decisions they did. We need to ensure that one of our

state’s flagship universities, one that carries so much weight around the world, is learning from the

past and not recreating it.”

191. Upon information and belief, the statements made by Governor Whitmer were a

contributing factor in the Defendants’ decision to terminate Plaintiff’s employment, as set forth

further herein.

M. September 11, 2023: Plaintiff’s Statement to the Media

192. Shortly after the USA Today articles were published, Plaintiff tried to respond to

the one-sided and unfair attack on his reputation, and the unlawful actions of the Defendants, by

releasing a written statement (the “Statement”) to the media. A copy of Plaintiff’s Statement is

attached hereto as Exhibit B.

193. Plaintiff again categorically denied the allegations of harassment and again stated

that the event at the heart of her allegations – what Tracy described as Plaintiff engaging in

unwanted activity during a telephone call – “was an entirely mutual, private event between two

52
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.56 Filed 07/31/24 Page 56 of 75

adults living at opposite ends of the country.” He pointed out that “never once during the 36

minutes did she object in any manner, much less hang up the phone.”

194. Plaintiff’s Statement pointed to other facts that cast severe doubt on her claim,

including that Tracy never raised her claim with anyone for more than four months after the

allegedly offending incident, and instead continued to communicate with Plaintiff normally.

Plaintiff noted that it was only after he and Tracy had a falling out (after Plaintiff complained that

Tracy and her assistant were spreading rumors about Plaintiff’s marriage) that Tracy decided to

file her claim.

N. September 27, 2023: Defendants Terminate Plaintiff’s Employment Before

Providing a Hearing on Tracy’s Claims

195. On September 18, 2023 – one week after the publication of the USA Today Articles

– Defendant Haller sent Plaintiff a letter providing “notice of the University’s intent to terminate”

the Employment Agreement (the “Termination Notice”). A copy of the Termination Notice is

attached hereto as Exhibit C.

196. Despite the public assurances made by Defendants Haller and Woodruff just one

week earlier that the process was “not complete,” and that the University intended to have the process

“play out” at a “hearing,” Haller now asserted that no such hearing was necessary. Instead, the

Termination Notice stated that in the course of the investigation process, the “University amassed

a body of undisputed evidence of misconduct that warrants termination for cause.”

197. The Termination Notice invoked the Early Termination provision of the

Employment Agreement (Section III(B)(1)) and contends that there is undisputed evidence that

Plaintiff engaged in conduct “involving moral turpitude” or that would “tend to bring public

disrespect, contempt, or ridicule upon the University.”

53
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.57 Filed 07/31/24 Page 57 of 75

198. Defendant Haller’s statement that there was “undisputed evidence” to support

Plaintiff’s termination without providing him with his right to hearing is demonstrably false. And

the Termination Notice was designed solely to create a pretextual basis to terminate Plaintiff’s

employment in violation of his constitutional, statutory, and contractual rights, including the right

to a hearing, which Haller and Woodruff publicly stated was necessary.

199. On September 25, 2023, Plaintiff, through counsel, sent Haller a lengthy letter in

response to the Termination Notice. A copy of the “Response Letter” is attached as Exhibit D.

The Response Letter established, in painstaking detail, that each and every allegation that Haller

and MSU rely upon for their unlawful termination of Plaintiff’s Employment Agreement based on

“undisputed facts” was and had been hotly disputed.

200. Accordingly, Defendants purported to fire Plaintiff before affording him an

opportunity to challenge Tracy’s account was completely unfounded and in direct violation of the

RVSM rules guaranteeing Plaintiff the right to a live hearing and providing him with a presumption

of non-responsibility. Moreover, the Response Letter demonstrated that the allegations at issue,

even if they were true (which they are not) did not rise to the level of moral turpitude or any other

“for cause” criteria as a matter of law.

201. Just two days later, on September 27, 2023, Haller, ignoring the fact that the entire

basis of MSU’s termination of Plaintiff was shown to be false, sent a letter confirming that the

Defendants were terminating Plaintiff’s Employment Agreement for cause. A copy of the

“Termination Letter” is attached hereto as Exhibit E.

202. In the letter, Haller stated that “it is decidedly unprofessional . . . to flirt, make

sexual comments, and masturbate while on the phone with a University vendor.” But Haller

ignored the fact that: (a) Tracy was not a University vendor at the time of the personal relationship

54
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.58 Filed 07/31/24 Page 58 of 75

given that she was hired and paid for a single one-time training session completed in August 2021;

and (b) contrary to Tracy’s false narrative, Plaintiff contended that he and Tracy were involved in

a private, personal relationship and that all of the conduct Haller referenced – the flirting, the

sexual comments and the sexual activity – was fully consensual and not unwanted as Tracy alleged.

Thus, according to Plaintiff, the conduct between Plaintiff and Tracy occurred in the context of a

deeply personal relationship between consenting adults that could not possibly constitute moral

turpitude or any other basis for termination. In truth, Plaintiff was terminated from his position

solely because Tracy – emboldened by the improper investigation – revealed confidential and

intimate details of their relationship to the national news media and caused a media frenzy with

her false allegations.

203. The termination of Plaintiff’s employment by the Defendants was based on (a) the

Individual Defendants’ fear of negative publicity and public attention, (b) their self-interest in

maintaining their image and positions, and (c) the Defendants’ related decision to simply accept

Tracy’s version of events even though they were vigorously disputed by Plaintiff, the

administrative process was still ongoing, and Plaintiff had not been provided an opportunity to

challenge Tracy’s allegations at a hearing.

204. MSU’s termination of Plaintiff was unlawful and was done solely to protect the

University based on pretextual grounds.

O. October 2023: Plaintiff Obtains Text Messages That Tracy Failed to Provide to
MSU

205. Even though Defendants had already terminated Plaintiff’s employment – the most

severe discipline available – they nevertheless decided to proceed with a purported “hearing” under

the RVSM Policy on or about October 5, 2023.

55
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.59 Filed 07/31/24 Page 59 of 75

206. The hearing was simply after-the-fact window dressing designed to provide cover

for Defendants’ illegal termination of Plaintiff.

207. The hearing deprived Plaintiff of due process. For example, the proceeding did not

provide for testimony by witnesses under oath and, in fact, because Tracy was not affiliated with

MSU (a requirement for the proceeding in the first place), there were no negative consequences

for Tracy’s failure to tell the truth. In addition, there was no direct questioning of hearing witnesses

(only the resolution officer was permitted to ask questions) a hallmark of any fair proceeding with

live testimony, and the resolution officer excluded witnesses that Plaintiff sought to call, including

an expert on the RVSM policy, Sokolow (see, supra, ¶¶ 148-49).

208. Plaintiff, who was suffering from a serious medical condition at the time, was

unable to attend the hearing. On September 20 and 25, 2023, Plaintiff requested a short

adjournment of the hearing due to his medical condition. The Defendants ignored Plaintiff’s

adjournment request and the hearing proceeded as scheduled.

209. Shortly before the hearing was set to begin, counsel for Plaintiff came into

possession of a trove of text messages Tracy failed to provide to investigators which exposed the

falsity of her claims against Plaintiff and her financial motivation to make the false claims and

extract a quick payout. They were provided to counsel by the husband of Ms. Tracy’s close friend

and confidant, Ahlan Alvarado.

210. Specifically, several months before the hearing, in or about June 2023, Ms.

Alvarado was in a serious car accident. She was hospitalized and, tragically, she passed away

shortly thereafter on June 19, 2023.

56
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.60 Filed 07/31/24 Page 60 of 75

211. Upon information and belief, while Ms. Alvarado was hospitalized after the

accident, and then again after her death, Tracy appeared at her home and asked her relatives for

access to Ms. Alvarado’s phone and computer.

212. Upon information and belief, Ms. Alvarado’s relatives thought that Tracy’s efforts

to access Ms. Alvarado’s electronic devices were unseemly, and they suspected that it was being

done so that Tracy could delete her communications with Ms. Alvarado, which undermined Tracy’s

claims against Plaintiff. Accordingly, Ms. Alvarado’s relatives, through counsel, contacted counsel

for Plaintiff and provided them with access to Ms. Alvarado’s text messages.

213. The messages that Tracy failed to produce from MSU undermined many of the core

contentions underlying her claims against Plaintiff and confirmed that her complaint was

motivated by her desire for financial gain. These messages include some of the messages discussed

herein in which Tracy states that “she was down to $5” in her bank account at the time she filed

her complaint, that she was filing her complaint against Plaintiff in an effort “to come to an

agreement” and to “make [Plaintiff] pay me 10k directly,” and that she viewed Plaintiff’s contract

extension with MSU as a source of “financ[ing]” for her organization.

214. In addition to the text messages, a new witness came forward and provided an

affidavit indicating that the sexual conduct that occurred during the April 28, 2022, phone call was,

as Plaintiff has contended, fully consensual.

215. Upon review of the material, on October 5, 2023, counsel for Plaintiff sent a letter

to Woodruff, Quinn, and all the members of the Board of Trustees summarizing the new evidence

and providing copies of the text messages and the witness statement. Plaintiff’s counsel pointed

out that that the new evidence confirmed what Plaintiff had been contending all along – that

Plaintiff did not engage in misconduct with Tracy, the investigation was fatally flawed, and that

57
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.61 Filed 07/31/24 Page 61 of 75

Plaintiff had not been provided any semblance of due process. The letter requested that the

Defendants contact Plaintiff’s counsel so that the unfair situation, including Plaintiff’s improper

termination, could be addressed further. None of the Defendants responded.

216. Given the lack of a response, on October 19, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel sent another

letter, this time to the OIE resolution officer assigned by Defendants to conduct the hearing on

Tracy’s claim. Plaintiff’s counsel advised the resolution officer of the new evidence and further

advised that Tracy’s organization had gone to state court and obtained an ex parte temporary

restraining order preventing the release of Tracy’s text messages to prevent the full story from

coming out.

217. Pursuant to the RVSM Policy, Plaintiff’s counsel requested that the OIE resolution

officer “keep the record open and delay making a determination until after we are able to provide

you with these text messages.” Again, the Defendants refused to delay the hearing or to consider

any of the critical evidence that exposed the falsity of Tracy’s claim.

218. Given the restrictions imposed by the OIE resolution officer engaged by MSU, the

lack of due process in the proceedings, and the failure to consider the newly-discovered text

messages, the “hearing” orchestrated by Defendants resulted in its pre-determined outcome – a

finding in favor of Tracy on her claims that Plaintiff engaged in unwanted sexual harassment.

219. The farcical after-the-fact “hearing” does not in any way legitimize Defendants’

unlawful actions as alleged herein. To the contrary, it was simply the last act in a series of many

specifically designed to deprive Plaintiff of his constitutional, statutory and contractual rights.

VI. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT I
42 U.S.C. §1983 – Fourteenth Amendment
Procedural Due Process Property and Liberty Interests

58
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.62 Filed 07/31/24 Page 62 of 75

(as against the Individual Defendants)

220. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

221. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no state

shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

222. Fourteenth Amendment due process protections are required in higher education

disciplinary decisions at public institutions.

223. Plaintiff had a property interest in his 2021 Employment Agreement and in having

the Defendants comply with its terms.

224. Plaintiff was entitled to notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard prior to

the deprivation of his property interest.

225. Plaintiff has a protected liberty interest in his good name, reputation, honor, and

integrity of which he cannot be deprived absent due process.

226. Plaintiff is entitled to process commensurate with the allegations and the discipline

imposed and consequences he was facing.

227. As detailed above, the Individual Defendants undertook to subject Plaintiff to an

improper, sham investigation that was designed from the inception to create a vehicle for the

Defendants to retain jurisdiction over the claim against him so that the Defendants could create a

pretextual basis to deprive Plaintiff of his rights.

228. The Individual Defendants also deprived Plaintiff of his property interests by

assisting in the termination of his employment without due process by creating a pretextual basis

to summarily fire him without a pre-termination hearing once Tracy’s claims became public due

to her unauthorized disclosure of confidential OIE Investigation information to the media.

59
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.63 Filed 07/31/24 Page 63 of 75

229. The after-the-fact hearing was stage-managed by the Individual Defendants and

was a farce, as the Defendants had already imposed the most drastic sanction available to them –

termination of Plaintiff’s employment – before the hearing was conducted.

230. Moreover, the purported hearing was specifically designed by the Individual

Defendants, in cooperation with the OIE resolution officer they engaged, to suppress evidence that

would have exposed the false basis for the unlawful conduct engaged in by the Individual

Defendants.

231. Indeed, in direct contravention of the University’s policies and applicable law, the

Defendants refused to allow Plaintiff to introduce important evidence that had recently come to

light which directly undermined Plaintiff’s allegations and, if fairly considered, would have

resulted in dismissal of Tracy’s claim.

232. In addition, Defendants Woodruff and Haller knowingly and voluntarily, or at the

very least, with reckless disregard for the truth, made false statements concerning Plaintiff,

including that evidence was “undisputed” and that his sudden suspension without pay and

termination were based on “new developments.”

233. The false statements made by Defendants Woodruff and Haller were, upon

information and belief, fully authorized by Defendant Quinn and by the Trustee Defendants.

234. For these reasons, and those set forth herein, the Individual Defendants actively and

voluntarily participated in the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. The Individual

Defendants knew that Plaintiff has a clearly established right to due process, and a reasonable

person would know that this conduct would violate Plaintiff’s due process rights.

60
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.64 Filed 07/31/24 Page 64 of 75

235. The Individual Defendants violated Plaintiff’s due process rights both pre-

termination and post-termination. The Individual Defendants did not afford Plaintiff meaningful

notice and opportunity to be heard prior to adverse personnel actions, or post-termination.

236. The Trustee Defendants and the Administration Defendants each violated their

respective obligations under the MSU Bylaws, which, in addition to the obligations that exist as a

matter of law, required the administrators and Trustees to protect Plaintiff’s rights and provide him

with full and fair process in the face of the allegations against him. The Trustee Defendants had

the duty to ensure that MSU employees are treated “in accordance with the law and [MSU’s]

internal policies and regulations,” but they did not do so with respect to Plaintiff.

237. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unlawful actions, Plaintiff has

suffered, continues to suffer, and will suffer irreparable harm, injury, and damages, including but

not limited to the loss of his position as Head Coach, loss of future employment opportunities,

mental and emotional distress, humiliation and embarrassment, and loss of personal and

professional reputation.

COUNT II
42 U.S.C. §1983 Conspiracy– Fourteenth Amendment
Procedural Due Process Property and Liberty Interests
(as against the Individual Defendants)

238. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

239. As detailed above in Count I, the Individual Defendants undertook together to

subject Plaintiff to an improper, sham investigation that was designed from the inception to create

a vehicle for MSU and the Individual Defendants to retain jurisdiction over the claim against him

so that the Individual Defendants could create a pretextual basis to deprive Plaintiff of his rights.

240. For these reasons, and those set forth herein, the Individual Defendants agreed

upon, and actively and voluntarily participated in a plan to violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
61
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.65 Filed 07/31/24 Page 65 of 75

Defendants knew that Plaintiff had a clearly established right to due process, and a reasonable

person would know that their conduct would violate Plaintiff’s due process rights.

241. The Individual Defendants shared in the objective to deprive Plaintiff of his clearly

established rights.

242. Each of the Individual Defendants committed overt acts in furtherance of the

conspiracy that caused injury to Plaintiff, including: asserting jurisdiction over a claim that fell

outside the RVSM policy coverage; assisting in and supporting the sham and improper

investigation; summarily suspending Plaintiff without pay and soon thereafter terminating Plaintiff

without a hearing; assisting in and supporting a farcical, post-termination hearing; refusing to

consider critical evidence that undermined Tracy’s claims; and making false statements concerning

the process.

243. The overt acts may be deemed to be attributed to each of Individual Defendants as

part of their conspiracy to violate Plaintiff’s rights.

244. As a direct and proximate result of the Individual Defendants’ unlawful actions,

Plaintiff has suffered, continues to suffer, and will suffer irreparable harm, injury, and damages,

including but not limited to the loss of his position as Head Coach, loss of future employment

opportunities, mental and emotional distress, humiliation and embarrassment, and loss of personal

and professional reputation.

COUNT III
42 U.S.C. § 1981 – Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Rights
(as against MSU and the Individual Defendants)

245. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

246. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no state

shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

62
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.66 Filed 07/31/24 Page 66 of 75

247. Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights apply in higher education

disciplinary decisions at public institutions.

248. Plaintiff, who is Black, is a member of a protected class.

249. As alleged herein, MSU and the Individual Defendants caused Plaintiff to suffer an

adverse employment action, including his suspension without pay and the termination of his

employment.

250. As alleged herein, there was no legitimate basis for the actions taken against

Plaintiff by MSU and the Individual Defendants.

251. As alleged herein, Plaintiff was treated differently from similarly situated white

coaches and employees of MSU who were not subjected to similar investigations in the face of

serious accusations of misconduct involving their teams and themselves, similar public statements

and press conferences by MSU leadership regarding allegations against them, or the harsh,

disproportionate, unfair and improper actions taken against Plaintiff.

252. The Individual Defendants and MSU actively and voluntarily participated in the

violation of Plaintiff’s equal protection rights by treating Plaintiff, who is Black, differently from

white personnel in the MSU Athletics Department.

253. MSU and the Individual Defendants knew that Plaintiff had a clearly established

right to equal protection, and a reasonable person would know that failing to treat Plaintiff in the

same way as similarly situated personnel under federal and state law and MSU policies would

violate Plaintiff’s equal protection rights.

254. As a direct and proximate result of MSU’s and the Individual Defendants’ unlawful

actions, Plaintiff has suffered, continues to suffer, and will suffer irreparable harm, injury, and

damages, including but not limited to the loss of his position as Head Coach, loss of future

63
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.67 Filed 07/31/24 Page 67 of 75

employment opportunities, mental and emotional distress, humiliation and embarrassment, and

loss of personal and professional reputation.

COUNT IV
Breach of Contract
(as against Defendant MSU)

255. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

256. As detailed above, Plaintiff had a valid employment contract under Michigan law

with MSU pursuant to his Employment Agreement.

257. Under the terms of the Employment Agreement, MSU was obligated to compensate

Plaintiff for a ten-year term and his employment could only be terminated for cause under very

limited circumstances as set forth in the Early Termination Provision.

258. MSU noticed its intent of termination under the Early Termination Provision just

days after the publication of the one-sided September 10, 2023, USA Today article concerning

Tracy’s allegations against Plaintiff. Thereafter, MSU terminated the Employment Agreement on

September 27, 2023.

259. MSU improperly invoked the Early Termination Provision of the Employment

Agreement to orchestrate the unjustified termination of the Employment Agreement based on

transparently false and pretextual grounds.

260. This improper invocation of the Early Termination Provision was a breach of

Defendant’s obligations under the Employment Agreement.

261. Contrary to MSU’s demonstrably false and pretextual statements, Plaintiff did not

engage in conduct that constitutes moral turpitude or any of the other bases for dismissal under the

Employment Agreement’s Early Termination provision relied upon by MSU. Instead, in

wrongfully terminating the Employment Agreement MSU relied upon information regarding

64
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.68 Filed 07/31/24 Page 68 of 75

Plaintiff’s private relationship that had become public due to Tracy’s improper release of

confidential OIE investigative information to the media. Such investigative information would

never have existed had MSU not improperly forced the matter into the RVSM process where no

coverage existed.

262. Plaintiff performed all his obligations under the Employment Agreement.

263. As a direct, proximate, and natural result of MSU’s breach, Plaintiff suffered

foreseeable damages, as Plaintiff has been deprived of his position and salary for a term of years

contemplated by the Employment Agreement.

COUNT V
Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations
(as against the Individual Defendants)

264. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

265. Plaintiff had a valid employment agreement under Michigan law with MSU

pursuant to his 2021 Employment Agreement.

266. As detailed above, MSU and the Individual Defendants improperly invoked the

Early Termination Provision of the Employment Agreement without a proper basis.

267. The Individual Defendants planned, promoted and assisted in MSU’s breach of

Plaintiff’s Employment Agreement in order to protect MSU and the MSU athletics program,

protect their image and retain their positions with the University, and to assist MSU in evading its

financial responsibilities to Plaintiff, as further alleged herein.

268. The Individual Defendants conspired to create a false predicate for such action, by

spearheading the improper OIE investigation to keep the Tracy claims out of the media and retain

authority to discipline Plaintiff. Once Tracy’s claims and the illegitimate investigative materials

65
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.69 Filed 07/31/24 Page 69 of 75

were made public by Tracy herself, the Individual Defendants further conspired to establish a

pretextual basis to terminate Plaintiff’s contract without a hearing.

269. Namely, Defendants Haller and Woodruff made false statements concerning “new

developments” in the OIE matter and “undisputed facts” to push forward with Plaintiff’s

termination under the Early Termination Provision, despite there being no new developments and

Plaintiff’s vociferous denials of Tracy’s allegations.

270. The Individual Defendants conspired to cause the breach of Plaintiff’s valid

contract for the improper purpose of attempting to protect themselves and save themselves and

MSU from unwanted negative media and public attention in the wake of several scandals involving

the athletic department and to protect their own positions with the University.

271. Upon information and belief, each of the Trustee Defendants was aware of the effort

to terminate Plaintiff’s Employment Agreement and approved and participated in the effort to

terminate Plaintiff’s employment.

272. Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the tortious interference with his contract,

including but not limited to loss of income, damage to his personal and professional reputation,

and extreme emotional harm.

COUNT VI
Defamation
(as against Woodruff and Haller)

273. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

274. Defendants Woodruff and Haller each made false and defamatory statements

concerning Plaintiff, or authorized, advanced or participated in the making of such false

statements, as more particularly set forth herein.

66
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.70 Filed 07/31/24 Page 70 of 75

275. Haller and Woodruff made false and defamatory statements to the public at the

September 10, 2023 press conference announcing Plaintiff’s sudden suspension without pay,

including that “new developments” supported their drastic and immediate employment actions

against Plaintiff, which statements were knowingly false. That statement was meant to and did

give the impression that Plaintiff had engaged in further misconduct requiring immediate

disciplinary action to separate him from the football program before any hearing.

276. Upon information and belief Defendant Quinn and members of the Board of

Trustees authorized the release of the false and defamatory statements made by Woodruff and

Haller.

277. The false and defamatory statements made by Defendants Haller and Woodruff

were not privileged communications and were made to third parties, including the press.

278. Haller’s and Woodruff’s false statements were defamatory per se because they were

designed to, and did, impugn Plaintiff’s reputation and employment status.

279. Defendant Haller and Woodruff made such false statements intentionally and/or

recklessly without regard to the truth, knowing that the statements were false, and/or acted with

malice toward Plaintiff in making them in order to impugn Plaintiff.

280. As a direct and proximate result of Haller’s and Woodruff’s actions, Plaintiff has

suffered, continues to suffer, and will suffer irreparable harm, injury, and economic damages,

including but not limited to the loss of his position as head coach, loss of future employment

opportunities, damage to his personal and professional reputation, and severe emotional distress.

COUNT VII
Aiding and Abetting
(as against Quinn and the Trustee Defendants)

281. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

67
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.71 Filed 07/31/24 Page 71 of 75

282. Each of the Defendants included in this Count VII authorized the false and

misleading statements made by Haller and Woodruff concerning Plaintiff at the September 10,

2023 press conference.

283. The authorized statements – which were represented as having been approved by

the highest level of the MSU administration and Board of Trustees – were made to a third party,

the press.

284. The authorized statements were made to the press with the patent intention of

harming Plaintiff and creating a false predicate to thereafter terminate his agreement.

285. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has suffered,

continues to suffer, and will suffer irreparable harm, injury, and economic damages, including but

not limited to loss of future employment/financial opportunities, and loss of personal and

professional reputation.

COUNT VIII
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
(as against all Defendants)

286. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

287. Defendants’ actions detailed at length above constitute extreme and outrageous

conduct that exceed all possible bounds of decency, and were atrocious, and intolerable in a

civilized community.

288. As detailed above, the Defendants undertook to subject Plaintiff to an improper,

biased, and sham investigation that was designed from the inception to create a vehicle for the

Defendants to retain jurisdiction over Tracy’s claims so that the Defendants could control the

investigation and create a pretextual basis to terminate Plaintiff.

68
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.72 Filed 07/31/24 Page 72 of 75

289. The false and misleading statements made by Defendants Woodruff and Haller at

the September 10, 2023 press conference with the authorization of the Individual Defendants, and

the public announcement of Plaintiff’s immediate suspension without pay, were designed to protect

the Individual Defendants and MSU, knowing the severe damage they were causing to Plaintiff

personally and professionally.

290. Moreover, Defendants created a pretextual basis to summarily fire Plaintiff without

a pre-termination hearing once the Tracy claims became public due to her improper disclosure of

confidential OIE investigation information to the media.

291. The after-the-fact hearing was managed by the Individual Defendants and was a

farce, as the Defendants had already imposed the most drastic sanction available to them –

termination of Plaintiff’s employment – before the hearing was conducted.

292. This conduct was undertaken to protect their interests at Plaintiff’s expense and

constituted a conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff of his ability to earn a living.

293. The purported hearing was specifically designed by the Defendants, in cooperation

with the resolution officer they engaged, to exclude evidence that would have exposed the false

basis for the unlawful conduct engaged in by the Defendants.

294. Defendants Woodruff and Haller knowingly and voluntarily, or at the very least,

with reckless disregard for the truth, made false statements concerning Plaintiff, including that

evidence was “undisputed” and that his suspension without pay and subsequent termination was

based on “new developments” as further alleged herein.

295. Defendants Woodruff’s and Haller’s false and misleading statements to various

press outlets concerning Plaintiff that intentionally impugned his reputation and integrity without

any basis in fact, shock the conscience.

69
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.73 Filed 07/31/24 Page 73 of 75

296. Defendants acted with intent to cause harm toward Plaintiff or have shown a

reckless disregard for the consequences of their actions.

297. Defendants inflicted emotional distress so severe that no reasonable person could

be expected to endure it.

298. Plaintiff has suffered in the face of false accusations and statements impugning him

without a meaningful opportunity to set the record straight.

299. Defendants’ outrageous conduct is the direct cause of Plaintiff’s severe emotional

distress.

COUNT IX
Violations of Elliott-Larson Civil Rights Act
(as against all Defendants)

300. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

301. The Elliott-Larson Civil Rights Act prohibits discriminatory employment practices

against protected classes.

302. Plaintiff, who is Black, is a member of a protected class.

303. As alleged herein, Plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action, including his

suspension without pay and termination of his employment.

304. As alleged herein, there was no legitimate basis for the actions taken against

Plaintiff.

305. As alleged herein, Plaintiff was treated differently from white coaches and

employees of MSU who were not subjected to similarly harsh, improper and unlawful conduct in

the face of allegations much more serious than those at issue herein.

306. The Individual Defendants and MSU, acting through its authorized agents,

including the Individual Defendants, actively and voluntarily participated in the violation of

70
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.74 Filed 07/31/24 Page 74 of 75

Plaintiff’s equal protection rights by treating Plaintiff, who is Black, differently from white

personnel in the MSU Athletics Department, including Dantonio and Izzo.

307. MSU and the Individual Defendants knew that Plaintiff has a clearly established

right to be free from racial discrimination, and a reasonable person would know that failing to treat

Plaintiff in the same way as similarly situated personnel under state law and MSU policies would

violate the Elliott-Larson Civil Rights Act.

308. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unlawful actions, Plaintiff has

suffered, continues to suffer, and will suffer irreparable harm, injury, and damages, including but

not limited to the loss of his position as head coach, loss of future employment/financial

opportunities, mental and emotional distress, humiliation and embarrassment, and loss of personal

and professional reputation.

VII. RELIEF REQUESTED

Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants as follows:

1. Awarding Plaintiff compensatory, economic, and noneconomic damages in

whatever amount Plaintiff is found to be entitled;

2. Awarding Plaintiff damages for all losses sustained to date as a result of

Defendants’ violations of their contractual obligations to Plaintiff;

3. Awarding Plaintiff damages for loss of future earnings;

4. Awarding Plaintiff exemplary and/or punitive damages in whatever amount

Plaintiff is found to be entitled;

5. Awarding Plaintiff interest, costs, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and expert witness

fees; and

71
 Case 1:24-cv-00795 ECF No. 1, PageID.75 Filed 07/31/24 Page 75 of 75

6. Awarding to Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court deems proper and

just.

VIII. JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff Mel Tucker, by and through his attorneys, demands a trial by jury of all of the

issues in this cause that are so triable.

Dated: July 31, 2024

GLAVIN PLLC

_____________________________
Rita M. Glavin
Lee S. Gayer*
Leo S. Korman**
156 West 56th Street
New York, NY 10025

Attorneys for Plaintiff

* Application for Admission Forthcoming

** Application for Admission Pending

72