Lawsuit filed

Donate To GopherHole
bizzle22 said:
Some plaintiffs have succeeded. Most of them won because the accused student either didn't get to see the evidence against them, the school didn't follow their procedures, or a panel was not allowed to make their own determination -- none of those would apply here. If you read the U of M policy and procedures for this type of situation there are specific steps there to provide these right to the accused. There could certainly be other areas where they focus their lawsuit. I think Pacyga outlined some of them in his public statements defending Lynch ie the training provided to the panel. So it may be a little premature of me to say they won't win, but they are going to need something good. Kaler calling the girl a "victim" from the get-go is going to help the players (I've said all along that he shouldn't have done that, and really should have abstained from saying much publicly about the whole situation), but that alone isn't going to be enough to win. Might help draw out a few extra dollars in the settlement though. My guess is the focus will be on the head of the committee (can't remember the name), and possibly Kaler himself.
Click to expand...

The U's policies were part of the problem.
 

bizzle22 said:
I'm aware of what they are alleging. What I'd like to know is the evidence they have to support those allegations.
Click to expand...

There could certainly be other areas where they focus their lawsuit. I think Pacyga outlined some of them in his public statements defending Lynch ie the training provided to the panel.

Was responding to this...

Also, Part 38 of the filing certainly outlines evidence to support their claims, unless you don't believe the EEOA investigator's actions as outlined in that section.
 

bizzle22 said:
I think it's more that for every MSU there are ten others where the situation isn't nearly as bad, but with the big dollars MSU paid out lawyers will go crazy over the potential of those types of cases. The lawyers are really the real winners in many of these situations. I don't what cut the law firm gets in the MSU settlement, but there's no doubt it works out to a huge payday. When Jameis Winston's accuser settled her lawsuit with FSU (and the police department as well, I believe) her lawyer got more money from it than she did.
Click to expand...

Sure. But MSU and the Catholic Church are pretty bad examples of those kinds of lawsuits.
 

Will be interesting to see what happens, lots of the aspects of this incident are difficult to prove as has been the case the entire time.
 

bizzle22 said:
Some plaintiffs have succeeded. Most of them won because the accused student either didn't get to see the evidence against them, the school didn't follow their procedures, or a panel was not allowed to make their own determination -- none of those would apply here.
Click to expand...

You probably know more about it than I do, but I'm not sure how you can say none of these apply here. 'School not following there own procedures' is a pretty big hole. For example, most of these school policies mandate 'fair and impartial' investigations but then also codify procedures which can be convincingly argued are anything but fair and impartial. (i.e. they violate their own policy by inconsistency of design).
 



If they can prove this, Kaler is in big trouble:

52.The boycott raised public outcry on all sides – with some faulting the
University for not providing due process and others crying for the University to take a
tough stance against sexual misconduct. Sensitive to this additional criticism, during his
meetings with football team leaders, Kaler went outside the University’s disciplinary
process – and beyond any legitimate authority he had as University President – and
offered a “compromise” resolution: he would lift the suspensions for the five accused
Plaintiffs who didn’t have sex with Jane Doe- JD7, JD8, JD9, JD10 and JD11-, if the
players would admit to the accusations in the EOAA’s report. Knowing the charges were
false, Plaintiffs – with the support of the team – refused that offer. Instead, the team only
agreed to cease the boycott when Kaler promised that Plaintiffs would receive a fair
hearing.

53. In making his “compromise” offer, Kaler used his power as a university
official to attempt to illegally manipulate witness testimony against JD1, JD2, JD3, JD4
and JD5. Kaler’s actions were in no way connected to a quest for the truth, but were
instead an after-the-fact attempt to insulate himself and the university from scrutiny over
the lack of due process afforded to the aforementioned students.
 


Just scanned through the complaint. The players and their lawyer really go after Kaler - citing all of his statements to the press about protecting victims, etc. Kaler also made comments that (paraphrasing) the U was not required to provide due process to the players. Not a lawyer, but it appears that Kaler might have some exposure here.

A big part of the argument is that the allegations against the players were handled differently than allegations against white, male administrators and coaches, including Teague, who were accused of harassment or misconduct.

I'm no lawyer, so I don't know if the lawsuit has merit. But, at the very least, it's going to turn the spotlight back on the EOAA and the way it conducts these proceedings.
 



CurveballJesus said:
If they can prove this, Kaler is in big trouble:

52.The boycott raised public outcry on all sides – with some faulting the
University for not providing due process and others crying for the University to take a
tough stance against sexual misconduct. Sensitive to this additional criticism, during his
meetings with football team leaders, Kaler went outside the University’s disciplinary
process – and beyond any legitimate authority he had as University President – and
offered a “compromise” resolution: he would lift the suspensions for the five accused
Plaintiffs who didn’t have sex with Jane Doe- JD7, JD8, JD9, JD10 and JD11-, if the
players would admit to the accusations in the EOAA’s report. Knowing the charges were
false, Plaintiffs – with the support of the team – refused that offer. Instead, the team only
agreed to cease the boycott when Kaler promised that Plaintiffs would receive a fair
hearing.

53. In making his “compromise” offer, Kaler used his power as a university
official to attempt to illegally manipulate witness testimony against JD1, JD2, JD3, JD4
and JD5. Kaler’s actions were in no way connected to a quest for the truth, but were
instead an after-the-fact attempt to insulate himself and the university from scrutiny over
the lack of due process afforded to the aforementioned students.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and there's a lot more than that. I'm skeptical of these university proceedings, and was skeptical of the EOAA report, so I'm trying to read this one skeptically as well, but there's some pretty serious allegations against Marisam and the plaintiff as well.

It's not a new development, but this might be the first time there's an actual on the record accusation that she had sex with a minor and which allegedly was ignored by the University (and supposedly there is her testimony to support it). That reads pretty darn badly when right there in black and white.
 

hello-world said:
"Kaler’s actions were in no way connected to a quest for the truth, but were instead an after-the-fact attempt to insulate himself and the university from scrutiny over the lack of due process afforded to the aforementioned students."

Nobody in their right mind believes that Kaler was trying to insulate himself from due process claims. He was certainly trying to insulate himself from getting fired, but this isn't going to be the case that gets him fired.

The case that gets him fired is an attempt at a cover up like Baylor's, PSU's, or MSU's. That clearly didn't happen in this scenario.
Click to expand...

They are alleging that he tried to go outside the process (flawed as it is) to try and broker a deal. That blows the U's "we did everything by our rules" out of the water.
 

tato2001 said:
You probably know more about it than I do, but I'm not sure how you can say none of these apply here. 'School not following there own procedures' is a pretty big hole. For example, most of these school policies mandate 'fair and impartial' investigations but then also codify procedures which can be convincingly argued are anything but fair and impartial. (i.e. they violate their own policy by inconsistency of design).
Click to expand...

The "fair and impartial" part of it is one thing there that is subject to interpretation, so I suppose they could (and they are in that this is one aspect of the suit) argue that the hearing was not fair. The players are saying the EOAA was biased against them and thus ran a biased investigation. There is an email from the head of the EOAA where she states that there is a "concerning pattern" with football players so it is fair to say that the EOAA was aware of past alleged incidents involving the football team. That alone doesn't prove the EOAA was determined to throw the book at them, but it definitely is a reason to look into it. I'm sure the players will be (or already have) requesting the electronic communications of everyone involved with the investigation to determine if there is evidence of bias within this specific investigation.

With my previous comment I am more referring to the fact that the procedures were followed in terms of the timeline/notifications and offering of a hearing. Part of their suit says that some of the players who were later accused of code of conduct violation were not informed that they were under investigation when they had their interviews. And I think that this is generally true, but the reason some of them were later deemed to have violated the code of conduct had to do with the results of the investigation ie the "cover-up", being aware of what was going on, etc.
 

Bye bye Kaler. Don't think you will be missed.
 



tato2001 said:
Yeah, and there's a lot more than that. I'm skeptical of these university proceedings, and was skeptical of the EOAA report, so I'm trying to read this one skeptically as well, but there's some pretty serious allegations against Marisam and the plaintiff as well.

It's not a new development, but this might be the first time there's an actual on the record accusation that she had sex with a minor and which allegedly was ignored by the University (and supposedly there is her testimony to support it). That reads pretty darn badly when right there in black and white.
Click to expand...



I've always been curious about this angle. The age of consent in MN is 16 (unless in a position of power over the minor, like a teacher) so I don't think it was illegal sexual contact. But it was recorded and then distributed amongst the players. I don't know the details on Minnesota laws about recording sex acts, but it can't be legal to record a minor in a sex act and then show it to people. The police obviously knew about it and didn't do anything, so maybe there is an exception that I am unaware of.
 


bizzle22 said:
[/B]

I've always been curious about this angle. The age of consent in MN is 16 (unless in a position of power over the minor, like a teacher) so I don't think it was illegal sexual contact. But it was recorded and then distributed amongst the players. I don't know the details on Minnesota laws about recording sex acts, but it can't be legal to record a minor in a sex act and then show it to people. The police obviously knew about it and didn't do anything, so maybe there is an exception that I am unaware of.
Click to expand...

It's probably worse for the players. My guess is that it was their phone and they passed it around. The crime would be theirs.
 

bizzle22 said:
[/B]

I've always been curious about this angle. The age of consent in MN is 16 (unless in a position of power over the minor, like a teacher) so I don't think it was illegal sexual contact.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, though, the lawsuit brings up the difference in ages ('more than 48 months'), but does not explicitly say it was illegal. I wonder how old this kid was?

EDIT: Actually the lawsuit specifically says the minor was 'legally unable to give consent'. Maybe he was only 15?
 

hello-world said:
"Kaler’s actions were in no way connected to a quest for the truth, but were instead an after-the-fact attempt to insulate himself and the university from scrutiny over the lack of due process afforded to the aforementioned students."

Nobody in their right mind believes that Kaler was trying to insulate himself from due process claims. He was certainly trying to insulate himself from getting fired, but this isn't going to be the case that gets him fired.

The case that gets him fired is an attempt at a cover up like Baylor's, PSU's, or MSU's. That clearly didn't happen in this scenario.
Click to expand...

The Baylor, PSU, MSU cases should have gotten those presidents arrested, this one should get Kaler fired.
 

Of course Rochelle Olson gets her grubby little mitts on the Strib story and suddenly it's filled with quotes from apparent Civil Suit and Due Process expert Abby Honold.

Olson and Shipley should be added to the suit
 

tato2001 said:
Interestingly, though, the lawsuit brings up the difference in ages ('more than 48 months'), but does not explicitly say it was illegal. I wonder how old this kid was?

EDIT: Actually the lawsuit specifically says the minor was 'legally unable to give consent'. Maybe he was only 15?
Click to expand...

I believe Pacyga is being cute here. He is dancing around the issue and calling him a minor and says "legally unable to give consent" to give the impression that it is an age thing. The player was 17. I would bet money that his "unable to give consent" was because of intoxication.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
I believe Pacyga is being cute here. He is dancing around the issue and calling him a minor and says "legally unable to give consent" to give the impression that it is an age thing. The player was 17. I would bet money that his "unable to give consent" was because of intoxication.
Click to expand...

?
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
I believe Pacyga is being cute here. He is dancing around the issue and calling him a minor and says "legally unable to give consent" to give the impression that it is an age thing. The player was 17. I would bet money that his "unable to give consent" was because of intoxication.
Click to expand...

Makes sense. I got the impression upon reading that it was a little 'too precisely' worded.
 


students will need to provide that the university “intentionally” treated them differently because of their race
Click to expand...

I'm no fan of the process.... but man that claim is going to be hard to prove.
 



tato2001 said:
Makes sense. I got the impression upon reading that it was a little 'too precisely' worded.
Click to expand...

It's actually in reference to the Student Code, which has some broadly worded parts where this certainly would come into play, regardless of what the MN statute defines.
 

It better not be true that Kaler, for his sake, offered to lift suspension of some players to get other to legitimize the EOAA.
 

My guess is the U tries to settle this as quick as possible. The sad part is not that our University system is ashamed or against the abuse of Due Process. They made it clear that the fundamentals of Due Process mean little to this bunch.

Rather they want to settle because a part of this lawsuit is saying that the players were treated this way because of their race. Regardless of whether that is true or not is why, the U doesn’t want that argued out in the open.

Unfortunately this day in age the only way to fight liberal identity politics is with liberal identity politics.
 

WoodburyTim said:
It better not be true that Kaler, for his sake, offered to lift suspension of some players to get other to legitimize the EOAA.
Click to expand...

I believe it was widely reported...and that was one of the main problems with the team members' trust of K&C...to the point that they told both to leave and two BoR members stepped in and resolved the situation.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom