Tucker made millions while delaying sexual harassment case
The upcoming hearing in the sexual harassment case against Michigan State football coach Mel Tucker was supposed to have taken place weeks ago.
It was initially planned for the week before the 2023 college football season began. But Tucker and his attorney got it pushed back to early October, emails show – during the team’s bye week.
Tucker is accused of making unwanted sexual comments and masturbating during an April 2022 phone call with Brenda Tracy, a prominent rape survivor and activist he had hired to educate his team about sexual violence prevention. Tucker denied the allegations, saying he and Tracy had consensual “phone sex.”
Michigan State suspended Tucker without pay on Sunday, hours after a USA TODAY investigation revealed the allegations. He earned $750,000 a month until his suspension without pay, his contract shows, meaning he had been paid at least $6 million since the college’s investigation started.
The timing of the hearing, like that of the suspension, is among many questions swirling in the wake of the college’s action.
The outside attorney Michigan State hired to investigate Tracy’s December 2022 Title IX complaint, Rebecca Leitman Veidlinger, completed her investigation on July 25, according to case documents Tracy shared with USA TODAY. A day later, the school’s hearing administrator set the hearing for August 22 and 23.
Tucker’s attorney, Jennifer Belveal, said she was unavailable either of those dates, emails show. The hearing administrator then suggested 10 dates in September, all weekdays.
Only one of those days did not work for Tracy and her attorney, Karen Truszkowski, the emails show. But Tucker and Belveal said they were unavailable for any of the other nine, an Aug. 3 email from the hearing administrator shows.
Tucker and Belveal said they would be available the first week of October – the team’s week off after its first five games. The hearing was ultimately set for Oct. 5 and 6.
A phone call and voicemail to Belveal’s cellphone went unreturned. Tucker previously
hung up on a reporter who reached him on his cellphone.
Although Michigan State policy says decisions will typically be made in cases within 60 days after the investigation, the hearing officer granted Tucker and Belveal’s requests for extensions due to scheduling conflicts and the need for additional time to review the 1,200page file.
The policy also says investigations will generally be completed within 90 days of the filing of a formal complaint. In Tracy’s case, the investigation lasted 216 – largely because Tucker did not meet with the investigator for three months, while he and Belveal tried to stop the investigation.
Delays have long plagued Title IX cases at the East Lansing campus, as they have at universities across the country. At one point during the 2019-20 school year, the average case at Michigan State lasted 361 days from report to resolution – roughly twice as long as its policy dictates. An audit of spring 2022 cases found fewer timeliness issues.
Tucker blasted the school’s investigation in an emailed statement Monday, calling the hearing a “sham” that campus leaders are using to avoid paying him the roughly $80 million remaining on the 10-year contract he signed in November 2021.
“This ‘hearing’ process was obviously designed for student infractions – not to address personal, private acts between adults in which disclosure of the intimate details impact one’s reputation and career,” Tucker wrote. “I have no intention of allowing Ms. Tracy’s character assassination to go unaddressed.”
Tracy responded with a statement of her own, saying that Tucker’s statement was “just more of the same DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender), deflection, victim blaming and lies that I’ve been dealing with now for months.”
“Coach Tucker has been delaying and trying to stop the investigative process since the beginning,” Tracy said. “He can’t afford to go to a hearing that determines credibility of the participating parties. I believe this statement is his way of getting out of participating in the hearing.”
Like informal court trials, hearings in campus sexual harassment cases are designed to give both parties the opportunity to ask questions of the other and any relevant witnesses before a neutral resolution officer.
They are not a repeat of the fact-finding investigation, in which a separate investigator interviews the parties and their witnesses and examines documentary evidence, such as phone records, emails and text messages. Instead, that investigator summarizes the evidence in a written report, which both parties already have and can reference at the hearing.
Only the parties’ advisors – in this case, their attorneys – are permitted to ask questions at the hearings, which typically take place virtually. They end with a written report from the resolution officer determining whether it is likely that the accused student or employee violated school policy.
Tucker said in his statement Monday that the “ridiculously flawed” hearing will not afford him a chance to explain his case or present substantive evidence of innocence. But Tucker had more than seven months to present evidence during the investigation. Additionally, both sides received the opportunity to argue their cases in writing after a draft of the investigation report was finished, which Tucker and his attorney did.
Tucker also asserted that his case is not being handled under Title IX, a federal law that requires schools to address sexual harassment if it meets certain criteria, such as if the incident took place on campus or in the context of a school program or activity. Michigan State’s policy, however, uses a more expansive definition of sexual harassment, also covering conduct that does not fall under the umbrella of Title IX. It provides virtually the same procedures for both, university spokesperson Dan Olsen told USA TODAY.
Michigan State policy does not require Tucker to answer questions or show up to the hearing, nor can it compel evidence or testimony. Refusal to answer questions cannot be used against him, but it could hurt the resolution officer’s ability to fully understand the facts.
If parties refuse to submit to cross-examination, their prior statements still can be used to assess their credibility. Tucker made numerous statements to Veidlinger that her investigation found were not credible, USA TODAY reported in its investigation. His statement Monday also contradicted his prior statements to the investigator.
In the absence of eyewitnesses or recordings, sexual misconduct cases often boil down to whose account is more credible. Tucker’s contradictory statements could sway the case in Tracy’s favor, said Ann Olivarius, a Title IX attorney who pioneered a landmark 1977 lawsuit that first established sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination under the law.
Tucker may avoid the hearing if he reaches a settlement with the school first, Olivarius said. But Michigan State should be “very cautious about offering him a payout,” given its history of mishandling sexual abuse allegations against Larry Nassar, the disgraced campus physician serving an effective life sentence in prison. Nassar is accused of sexually assaulting more than 300 women and girls under the guise of medical treatments.
“They should go after this guy,” Olivarius said. “I would never advise them, as counsel with expertise in this area, to pay him off at all. I’d say, ‘Bring it on. Sue us.’”