MSU pays 1.2 million for agreed silence about football player sexual misconduct case
Michigan State University paid a combined $1.2 million to a woman and a former football player who were embroiled in a Title IX investigation and subsequent lawsuits if they both agreed to "set aside" the findings of an investigation that found the football player responsible for violating the school's sexual misconduct policy.
The former female student, listed as "Jane Doe" in settlement documents obtained Tuesday by Outside the Lines as part of a public records request, received $475,000 from the university. The football player, Keith Mumphery, received $725,000.
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/27163447/michigan-state-pays-12m-settle-complaint
Wow! I wonder what they are keeping quiet about? Especially since the player received more money than the accuser.
Learning institution in the US were mandated to become a super judiciary to continue receiving federal funds. The real judiciary laughs collages out of court. The accused, guilty or not, are deprived of due process. Thus, colleges are having to settle with the accused.
The preponderance of evidence suggests that Title IX is inserting the worst kind of politics to college administrators.
Sexual misconduct should remain in the purview of law enforcement and the judiciary. In the backdrop, universities that attempt to shield football players from legal consequences further distorts this complex issue. I feel sorry for our young students having to navigate through these waters.
I laugh at collages, too. The combinations of items put together are hilarious.
I pretty sure the player threatened to sue for violation of due process. I'm sure that, combined with the likelihood of inconclusive evidence regarding the allegations, caused university lawyers to determine they were vulnerable to a lawsuit for denial of due process and whatever sanctions or damage to reputation occurred as a result of the flawed process. So they made the player an offer for his silence. However, the alleged victim wasn't just going to go away so they had to buy her silence as well.
So, Michigan State has now paid a $1.2 million that could have actually gone to, you know, educating students. The idea that any institution, especially a public one, should be empowered as judge, jury and executioner is dangerous as hell. Today's issues by which such extra-judicial powers are granted may be considered appropriate social policy. What guarantees are there that tomorrows will be? These things have a way of eating their own.
The $1.2m would've just gone to pay 2 administrators salaries in the redundant department of redundancy, anyways.
According to the article, these are settlements of two separate lawsuits arising from MSU's response to an alleged rape.
"The woman filed a lawsuit in November 2017, stating that the school did not provide her adequate support services and failed to enforce a campus ban against Mumphery after finding him responsible for violating the school's sexual misconduct policy."
"In his lawsuit, Mumphery accused MSU of failing to adequately inform him of the second investigation, stating he did not receive emails or letters from MSU regarding the proceedings, including a copy of a June 7, 2016, letter stating the finding of a violation and his ban from campus."
So she is being compensated because the school didn't follow statutorily mandated procedures under Title IX. He is being compensated because the school violated his constitutional rights. He also claims that his professional career was harmed by MSU's errors: "The case was not made public until a May 31, 2017, Detroit Free Press article detailed the woman's sexual assault allegation and MSU's finding against Mumphery. The Texans cut him from their roster within days, and he has not been signed by an NFL team. In his lawsuit, Mumphery alleged that the publicity surrounding his case cost him his NFL career."
I don't have any experience with Title IX litigation so I don't know whether the settlement for the woman is reasonable but the fact that she and her attorney accepted it suggests that it is. I will say that if MSU actually conducted a second adversarial hearing without informing Mumphery after he had prevailed in a previous hearing and it resulted in the damage he claims, MSU is getting off easy in their settlement with him.
Well, if MSU is getting "off easy" on the Mumphery end and he was if fact guilty then they quadruplely (a new word?) got off easy on the victim end.
FWIW, MSU is pure scum in these regards...in every direction.
State's track record is indeed abysmal. That said, universities have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they don't know what the hell they're doing when one student accuses another of sexual assault. State isn't special in this case - they're just one of hundreds of universities that totally bungled the handling of these cases from start to finish, in no small part because they were required to.
The player getting more money should be expected for a couple reasons. MSU invited a banned player back to campus for a football camp and golf outing. They even made his travel arrangements for him. Since MSU invited him back I would have to think he thought it was OK especially since he claims he never knew about the ban. This led to the story that got him cut from the Texans and he hasn't played in the league since. I'm not making a judgement on the original case, but MSU pretty much cost him his career by inviting him back despite him being banned.
MSU never informed the girl that he was back on campus and she found out from friends who saw him on campus. I'm not sure about the support issues.
The real question is how can an institution of higher learning hire so many incompetent people?
Kinda fucked up a person can claim damages for the consequences of sexually assaulting someone.
VERY fucked up.
All too common when it comes to all things Staee.
Agreed.
But violating someone's due process rights is fucked up, even if said person is a sexual predator.
But they were required to violate everyone's due process rights in order to keep their federal funding thanks to the Obama administration's "Dear Colleague" letter. Every university was in the same boat, including Michigan.
Interesting take, but I'm only very slightly, very vaguely familiar with that Obama administration letter you refer to. Do you have a link available so that we all can read up on it a bit?
I don't agree with David French on much, but this seems pretty straightforward:
The failure to notify him of the hearing is a major violation of the Constitutional right to due process, and not dependent on the changed standard enacted by the “Dear Colleague” letter (preponderance). Regardless of the standard of evidence used, the school had a duty to make efforts to inform him. Whether or not they complied with that duty, I cannot say; the amount of the settlement suggests they were fearful they would lose on that issue.
side note, Sorry if already posted. Looked for it but didn't see it anywhere. This is the school paying for damage control. Interesting that the player received so much more than the female.
Obviously it pays to be the rapist at that shit hole
Look, I don't like that place as much as the next guy, but i have never seen a rapist get money in a settlement case. Especially to keep silent. I don't think we should be so quick to believe a person is guilty of something without any proof.
Could it be the player knows where the bodies are buried? I really can't think of another reason they would both get paid.
I'm also not a lawyer but I know there are plenty on here.
Sounds like this whole investigation was a bit of a mess. Mumphrey ended up getting expelled after initially being cleared by title IX investigations. Then both of them filed lawsuits against MSU a few years later for different reasons (her for MSU not providing proper support etc.., him for them not following his due process rights or something).
They paid both to get the lawsuits to go away. He must have had a better lawyer to get more money. The story says the other parties weren't told how much they were receiving in the settlements and that MSU tried to get the dollar amounts to be redacted but did not succeed.
He got paid more because the university initially told him he was innocent and also because the settlements were not disclosed to both parties. Apparently he had a better attorney. In no way does it suggest he’s innocent.
My layman's interpretation is that MSU bungled his investigation. He paid the price as a result of it and got compensated for it.
You can just hear Barry Scheck in the background "How about THAT Mr. Fung!"
Can't believe parents still let their kids go there.
Is anybody supervising these people???
If so, we should ask to speak with them.
Like, 100 times.
I understood this reference.
I wonder who MSU's insurance company is - they must be just rolling their eyes at the incompetence in that institution.
This is a legit question. If I'm an insurance company, I'm not thrilled with the prospects of doing business with MSU going forward.
Actually, if I'm the incumbent insurer, I'm jacking rates hard at renewal time based on the experience mod, with full knowledge that no alternate provider will assume the tail risk on anything before a switchover date.
MSU has no real alternative but to pay whatever their insurer wants, unless they want to assume the self-insurance risk. Even if they only have a reinsurer providing a stop-loss, it's gonna cost.
They are likely in a Captive program with other large universities. In those programs, the universities share the risk after a certain dollar threshold is met. If they are in this type of program, I'm guessing the other universities are seething with steam coming out of their ears.
Just found they recently joined a Captive program. They're on the hook for the first $5M of any claim and then the Captive covers the next $10M above that.
https://www.captive.com/news/2019/03/12/Michigan-State-Captive-Insurance-Following-Scandal
I think MSU has stoopid-visors. Engler affirmed them.
Good one, Dad.
Jeffrey Epstein is their court-appointed arbitrator.
That explains why the player got the bigger settlement.
We should all note that this isn't proof that there is a sexual misconduct problem at MSU. There's just an investigative misconduct by ESPN. Dantoni is the real victim here.
Please add /s after this comment so that I know you are joking.
Should not be necessary
Exactly. They were singled out by ESPN because they're a nationally elite program.
You silly, naive man.....
It is obvious to menthat the massive clandestine Michigan conspiracy (aka Blue Wall) is falsifying all this info against MSU to hide the fact that Juwan Howard MAY have talked about a recruit before his paperwork was filed.
Perhaps I have said too much....
Wait—an athlete who had been found to be responsible for violations of the sexual misconduct policy received more money than the victim? Why did he merit any money at all?
The only thing I can think of is Title IX court was wrong and he wasn't guilty. Wouldn't be the first time it happened. If that was the case, the money to the female was to save face and the money to the player was to save a massive lawsuit and further badgering in the press about their handling of sexual misconduct cases.
Yeah, it seems like there are a few sides to this, but what it boils down to is that MSU screwed up how it handled the Title IX proceedings, leaving Mumphrey essentially in limbo (after first saying he wasn't responsible) and not sufficiently informing him of the continued investigation and allowing him to be involved in something investigating him. On the victims side, it seems more about how MSU actually supported her through the process.
What I'm a bit surprised about, from a PR perspective, is find a way for the payouts to at least be equivalent. Regardless of the rationale for Mumphrey receiving more, it, at the surface, looks bad, given the focus within our society on sexual assault right now.
Wait, so you're telling me MSU isn't very good at handling sexual assault investigations and pr? First I've heard of it.
Kidding aside, I agree with your interpretations. I'm surprised the settlement amounts were allowed to be public information.
The article says they didn't find Mumphrey in violation the first time around and then did the 2nd time around.
So basically his lawyers can raise hell that MSU mistreated him after they (may have) mistreated the girl. He was in the NFL and has more money/name recognition so MSU's lawyers were probably afraid of him more than the woman and threw more money because what's the woman going to do? MSU already doesn't give a shit about female victims.
Basically their incompetence the first time around, and subsequent incompetence the 2nd time around is biting them in the ass.
So an investigation finds that the player violated the school's sexual misconduct policy and then the agreement is that he receives almost twice as much as the person accusing him?
What a goddamn dumpster fire that school is.
maybe they found him not guilty or violated his civil rights in some manner and decided to make payments to avoid litigation. regardless, that place is a mess
This sounds like the most likely scenario. He was waived immediately by the Texans after the first sexual assault allegation and was then eventually found not guilty, Sounds like he was suing MSU for loss of earnings....of course all of these investigations were done in house