Michigan State Lawsuit

Case 1:18-cv-01261-JTN-ESC ECF No. 1 filed 11/12/18 PageID.
1 Page 1 of 15
LINITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CURTIS E. BLACKWELL, U,
Plaintiff, Case No. 18-cv-

Hon.
V
LOU ANNA K. SIMON, in her individual

capacity as president of Michigan State University,
MARK DANTONIO, in his individual capacity
as Head Football Coach of Michigan State
University, MARK HOLLIS, in his individual
capacity as Director of Intercollegiate Athletics for
Michigan State University, DETECTIVE CHAD
DAVIS, in his individual capacity as a detective
for the Michigan State University Police
Department, and DETECTIVE SAM MILLER,
in his individual capacity as a detective for the
Michigan State University Police Department;
Defendants
James K. Fett (P39461)

FETT & FIELDS, P.C.
Attorney for Plaintiff
805 E. Main
Pinckney, MI 48169
734-954-0t00
734-954-0762-fax
jim@fettlaw.com
for Plaintiff
COMPLAINT AND DEMAI{D FOR JURY TRIAL

PLAINTIFF, CURTIS BLACKWELL, II ("PlaintifP') through counsel, states the
following complaint against Defendants :

Case 1:18-cv-01261-JTN-ESC ECF No. 1 filed 11/12/18 PageID.2 Page 2 of 15
NATURE OF PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS

1. This lawsuit has been filed because certain Michigan State University ("MSU")
officials, feeling the heat from the Larry Nassar cover-up, and eager to prove they were tough on
cover-ups, ran roughshod over Plaintiffls rights when he was wrongly accused of covering up for
MSU athletes involved in an alleged sexual assault of a female co-ed in January 2011.
2. With no evidence, none, that Plaintiff covered up for the athletes, the MSU Police
Department, in stormtrooper fashion cuffed Plaintiff; seized his personal and MSU cell phones and
hauled him off to the MSU Police station.
3. No charges weÍe ever filed against Plaintiff and the County Prosecutor
acknowledged in Court filings that Plaintiff committed no crime.
4. It is not surprising then that after being hauled off to jail for no good reason amid
the Nassar hysteria that he exercised his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent when:
(1) the MSU Police Department, for no good reason, wrongly arrested him and seized
,)
his cell phones and demanded an in-custody interrogation;
(2) during the pendency of unfounded criminal charges, MSU demanded that he submit
to another interrogation by its lawyers.
5. Afraid for their own hides, these MSU defendants swiftly retaliated against Plaintiff
for doing what any reasonable person in his position would have done.
6. First, they suspended him in violation of his Employment Agreement and then fired
him after fabricating explanations to justify and divert attention away from their own actions and
inactions.
7 . Never, not once, did these MSU defendants favor Plaintiff with the opportunity to
sit down and explain his side of the story as required by the Employment Agreement. (Exhibit A)
2
8. Had they, Plaintiff would have explained that he did not provide cover for the
student athletes or interfere with an investigation; rather, he was simply performing his job which
required "mentoring student athletes".
9. Plaintiff asserts constitutional claims for the false arrest and imprisonment and
subsequent termination.
10. Plaintifls claims are brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. $ 1983 and the Declaratory
Judgment Act,28 U.S.C. ç 220I, et. seq.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1 1. This Court has jurisdiction over PlaintifPs claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C . 1983; 28
U.S.C. $$ 1331, 1332, 1337, 1343, and 1367.
12. This Court also has jurisdiction to render a declaratory judgment pursuant to the
Declaratory Judgment Act,28 U.S.C. ç 220I, et seq.

'¡
.t¡ : 13. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. $ 1391(bX1) because upon information and belief
all of the named Defendants reside in the State of Michigan, and in the Western District of
Michigan.
PARTIES
14. Plaintiff is a resident of Wayne County, Michigan.
15. Plaintiff is co-founder and President of Sound Mind Sound Body Foundation, a
Michi gan nonprofi t corporation.
16. Defendant, Lou Anna K. Simon ("Defendant Simon"), is the former president of
MSU.
17. Defendant, Mark Dantonio ("Defendant Dantoniooo), is the exceptional MSU
Head Football Coach.
3
18. Defendant, Mark J. Hollis ('(Defendant Hollis"), is the former MSU Athletic
Director.
19. Defendant, Chad Davis (ú'Defendant Davis'o), is a detective with the MSU Police
Department.
20. Defendant, Sam Miller ("Defendant Miller"), is a detective with the MSU Police
Department.
2L Defendants Davis and Miller are also collectively referred to as the "MSU police
defendants".
COMMON ALLEGATIONS
Defendant Dantonio's Recruitment of Plaintiff to Join MSU Football Staff
22. Since 2004, Plaintiff has worked diligently through his foundation to assist young
student athletes with the difficult task of obtaining college scholarships; this is done in part by
showcasing young talent at an annual foundation football camp attended by many college football
coaches.
23. In the summer of 2013, Defendant Dantonio attended Plaintifls annual football
camp at Southfield High.
24. Plaintiff working through his foundation, caught the eye of Defendant Dantonio in
the summer of 2013.
25. During his visit to Plaintiffls Sound Mind Sound Body football camp, Defendant
Dantonio offered Plaintiff a job on the MSU football staff.
26. The position required Plaintiff to incorporate aspects of his Sound Mind Sound
Body football camp into MSU's football program.
4
27 . Plaintiff accepted Defendant Dantonio's offer of the newly created position titled
Director of College Advancement and PerformancelCamp Director ("Director"); the contract for
the position would be renewable from year-to-year at Defendant Dantonio's discretion.
28. On July 31,2013, Defendant Hollis, on behalf of MSU, and Plaintiff signed the
initial one-year contract for Plaintiff to serve in the Director position.
Plaintiff s Exemplary Performance
29. Defendants Dantonio and Hollis renewed Plaintiffls contract eachyear from 2013
through March 31,2017.
30. Each year that Defendants Dantonio and Hollis renewed Plaintiff s contract, they
raised his salary.
31. Because Plaintiff was so successful in his position and had received glowing
evaluations from his peers, in March 20I6,Defendants Dantonio and Hollis significantly increased
Plaintiff s salary from $83,435 to 129,000.
32. Defendants Dantonio and Hollis also significantly increased Plaintiffls salary
because a competing Big Ten football program in Ann Arbor, Michigan made Plaintiff a lucrative
offer to join its program in a similar position that would have paid Plaintiff nearly twice the
compensation that Plaintiff earned at MSU.
33. Defendants provided the following explanation for the raise:
With Curtis on staff, we have attracted high-level recruits, which in turn

supports the success of our football program. This success is evident in the
winning record over the past few years. If Curtis were to leave, he would
take his recruiting strategies and recruiting relationships with him to another
school. This would impact the recruiting success of the program and it
would be leveraged at another Big Ten school/competitor.
34. Consequently, Defendants Dantonio and Hollis believed it was in the best interest
of the MSU football program to raise Plaintifls salary by $45,000 in20l6.
5
35. During his tenure as Director, Plaintiff always received glowing and exceptional
evaluations, which is why Defendants Dantonio and Hollis always renewed Plaintiff Blackwell's
year-to-year contract.
36. During his tenure as Director, Plaintiff was never disciplined or suspended by the
Defendants Dantonio and/or Hollis.
Players Sexual Assault Incident and Subsequent

Police Interview and Unlawful Arrest of Plaintiff
37. On January 15,2017 an alleged sexual assault involving 3 MSU football players
occurred at an off-campus party.
38. One of the player's father contacted Plaintiff to inform him that he heard of a wild
off-campus party his son and other freshmen had attended and asked Plaintiff to inquire if anyone
was in trouble.
39. Plaintiff inquired of several players, including one, Auston Robertson, that told him
he had already spoken with Defendant Dantonio who had directed him to contact the Title IX
Office to report a potential sexual assault incident.
40. Plaintiff s inquiry of Auston Robertson and other players was limited to whether
they got into any trouble at the party; they all said "no".
4L No player acknowledged committing a crime or any sort of sexual contact.
42. Plaintiff also informed Robertson that "if you didn't do anything, you know, why
are you concerned? You know, just go in there and tell the truth."
43. At no time did Plaintiff conduct an investigation into what had occuned at the
January 15th party; rather, he was simply "mentoring the student athletes" by encouraging them to
stay away from wild parties.
6
44. Plaintiffs actions were at all times consistent with his responsibility (per his
Employment Agreement) (Exhibit A) to mentor the student athletes and that is what he did on
January 16,2017.
45. On February 8,2017 , at approximately 9:15 a.m., Defendants Detectives Davis and
Miller went unannounced to the MSU football building to interview at least four (4) football
coaches, including Plaintiff, about an alleged sexual assault involving MSU football players that
occurred on January 15, 2017 .
46. According to Defendant Miller's case report, at the time of the February 8,2017
interviews, ooit was believed all four coaches obtained information related to this
incident/investigation[.] "
47. Defendants Miller and Davis interviewed Plaintiff in his MSU football building
office.
48. Plaintiff cooperated fully during the course of the interview, answering truthfully
all of the questions posed by Defendants Miller and Davis about the suspected players and what
he knew about the alleged incident.
49. Unexpectedly, and for no good reason, Defendants Miller and Davis stopped the
interview, and without first reading Plaintiff his Miranda rights, unlawfully placed him under arrest
for allegedly interfering andlor obstructing a criminal investigation, seized two cell phones, and
then escorted Plaintiff out of his office to the parking lot.
50. At the request of Defendants Miller and Davis, Officer Cody Kovacic immediately
responded to the MSU football building and without first reading Plaintiff his Miranda rights,
placed him in handcuffs and transported him to the MSU Police Department.
7
51. Upon arcival at the MSU Police Department, Kovacic placed Plaintiff in an
interview room, where Defendants Miller and Davis then read Plaintiff his Miranda rights from
the MSU Police Department's advice of rights form.
52. Upon being advised by Defendants Miller and Davis that he was being arrested for
allegedly violating a "university ordinance", Plaintiff wisely invoked his Fifth Amendment
constitutional right and chose not to speak further with Defendants Miller and Davis.
53. The MSU Police Defendants released Plaintiff from police custody after
approximately 30 minutes.
Plaintiff s Unwarranted Suspension and Subsequent

Nonrenewal of his Employment Contract.
54. Upon release from police custody, Plaintiff immediately informed Defendant
Dantonio of the unlawful arrest and detention.
55. The next day, Defendant Dantonio advised Plaintiff that he was immediately
suspended and on paid administrative leave and he was not to have any further contact with the
football program or its players pending the outcome of the investigation.
56. Suspiciously, almost instantly the media learned of Plaintiffls unlawful arrest and
began writing defamatory stories about Plaintiff and his alleged involvement in the players sexual
assault incident.
57. At no time did Defendants honor Plaintiff s Employment Agreement which
required that he be "provided with an opportunity to speak with the Athletic Director [Defendant
Hollis] .. . [p]rior to the imposition of any discipline or corrective action."
58. Meanwhile, shortly after Plaintiff s unlawful arrest and false imprisonment, MSU
in February 2017, commissioned an external investigation of the football program and the January
2017 alleged sexual assault incident involving MSU football players.
I
59. Due to the illegal and unwananted arrest and false imprisonment by the MSU
Police Department, the pending criminal investigations by the MSU Police Department and the
Ingham County Prosecutor, and the advice of his legal counsel, Plaintiff respectfully invoked his
Fifth Amendment right and declined to be interviewed by investigators from the Jones Day law
firm about the January 2017 sexual assault incident.
60. The backdrop for this newest MSU scandal was the Larry Nassar sexual abuse
investigation which revealed the MSU officials to be less than proactive in protecting the rights of
sexual abuse victims; consequently, Defendants Simon, Hollis and Dantonio were eager to
trammel the rights of Plaintiff to demonstrate their newfound commitment to protecting the rights
of sexual abuse victims.
61. Unfortunately, in law as in life, o1wo wrongs don't make a right"; Defendants were
not privileged to run roughshod over Plaintiffls rights to make up for their lapses in the Nassar
debacle. :
62. Plaintiff s invocation of his Fifth Amendment right, both with respect to the MSU
Police and Jones Day interviews, greatly displeased MSU officials, including but not limited to
Defendants Simon, Dantonio and Hollis, even though such invocation was prudent given the bad
faith demonstrated by the illegal false anest and false imprisonment, illegal seizure of his cell
phones and subsequent violation of his Employment Agreement and defamatory media coverage
apparently instigated by MSU offrcials.
63. On information and beliet a regent petitioned Defendant Simon to spare Plaintiff,
but she refused because the heat was on from the Nassar scandal; similarly, Defendant Hollis stated
to a media representative that were it not for the Nassar scandal, Plaintiff would not have been
treated so poorly.
I
64. Before the expiration of Plaintiffs contract on March 31, MSU extended the
contract on a month-to-month basis pending the outcome of the investigation; the contract was
extended twice, once for the period April 1, 2017 to April 30, 2017 and again for the period May
1,2017 to May 31,2017.
Defendants Retaliate Against Plaintiff For Not Speaking To The MSU Police
and the Jones Day Law Firm By Terminating His Contract.
65. During the week of May 22,2017, Defendant Dantonio advised Plaintiff that he
oohad
to move in a different direction with the position", or words to that effect, and that he would
not be renewing PlaintifPs Director contract; he later offered varying explanations for the adverse
employment action.
66. For example, on May 22, 2017, Kristine Zayko, who at the time was the MSU
Deputy General Counsel, sent an email to Plaintiff s counsel advising him that:
the following is excerpted from the notice University intends to send to Mr. Blackwell
regarding the expiration of his fixed term contract MSU: 'Over the last several months, a
staffing review has been conducted within the football program. Bäsed on feedback
received during that review, as well as concerns that have arisen regarding your job
performance, Coach Dantonio has determined that your contract should not be extended.'
67. Then the next day, on May 23,2017, Ms. Zayko sent another email to PlaintifPs
counsel advising him that:
the relevant text from the intended notice to your client will now read: "Over the last
several months, a staffing review has been conducted within the football program.
Based on feedback received during that review, as well as concerns regarding a
potential conflict of interest with your outside activities, Coach Dantonio has
determined that his program will move in a different direction and your contract will
not be extended."
10
68. However, despite the wording offered by MSU's legal counsel, the reason provided
in the o'offtcial" May 24,2017 notice of non-renewal did not include any of the wording offered
in the May 22 &,23,2017 emails.
69. Rather, the reason stated in the "off,rcial" }i4ay 24,2017 notice to Plaintiff was that
"[a]s Coach Dantonio discussed with you earlier this week, he has determined that his program
will move in a different direction and your contract will not be extended."
70. Defendant Dantonio later stated to the media that Plaintiffs Employment
Agreement was not renewed because of "philosophical differences" and not any possible MSU
policy violations found by the Jones Day investigators.
7I. As set forth above, Plaintiff never violated MSU policy prohibitions against staff
conducting investigations into sexual assault incidents; Plaintiff merely inquired if the players got
into any trouble at the January 15,2017 party.
72. Defendants Simon, Dantonio and Hollis' retaliation against the Plaintiff for
exercising his Fifth Amendment Right not to be interviewed by the MSU Police Defenåants and
Jones Day attorneys has severely damaged Plaintiff s reputation and good name.
COUNT I
Violation of Fourth Amendment Right To Be Free
From Unlawful Arrest And Seizure by Davis and Miller
73. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding allegations.
74. Defendants Davis and Milled did not have probable cause to arrest Plaintiff on
February 8,2017.
11
75. The Fourth Amendment states in pertinent partthat oono

Warrants shall issue, but
upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized." U.S. CONST. amend. IV.
76. A "seizure" of an individual takes place when, by means of physical force or a show
of authority, his freedom of movement is restrained.
77 . Here, Plaintiff and his cell phones were ooseized" within the meaning of the Fourth
Amendment when Defendants Miller and Davis seized his cell phones and caused Plaintiff to be
handcuffed, placed inside a locked police vehicle, and driven to the MSU Police Department.
78. The MSU Police defendants lacked probable cause to arrest Plaintiff because there
were no facts or circumstances that would cause a reasonably prudent person to believe that
Plaintiff had committed a crime.
79. There was no evidence that Plaintiff had interfered with a police investigation as
the MSU Police Defendants had falsely alleged.
80. Consequently, no charges were ever brought against Plaintiff by the Ingham
County Prosecutor and the 54-B District court for the City of East Lansing granted Plaintiff
complete immunity in exchange for his truthful testimony in the investigation of the January 2017
sexual assault incident.
81. Moreover, the Ingham County Prosecutor's offrce has stated in its court filings that
Plaintiff was "not atarget or a subject of the ongoing criminal sexual conduct investigation" and
Plaintiff "has no potential criminal liability in regards to that offense."
82. After Plaintiff provided nearly three hours of subpoenaed testimony to the
Prosecutor and the MSU Defendants on May 13,2017,the Prosecutor's Office informed Plaintifls
12
counsel that Plaintiff would not even be called as a witness if charges were issued against the
former MSU football players. (Exhibit B)
83. The MSU Police Department has concealed evidence by denying a lawful Freedom
of Information Act request despite providing a heavily redacted police report in 2017 . (Exhibit
c)
84. The totality of the evidence establishes that the MSU Police Defendants did not
have probable cause to arrest Plaintiff on February 8,2018.
85. The MSU Police Defendants' unlawful actions have severely damaged Plaintiffls
reputation and good name.
V/HEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court enter judgment against Defendants Miller
and Davis as follows:
a. Compensatory damages in whatever amount above $75,000.00 he is found

to be entitled;
b. An award of lost wages and the value of fringe benefits, past and future;
c An award of exemplary and punitive damages;
d An award of interest, costs and reasonable attorney fees under 42 USC

$ 1 988;
e A declaration that the Defendants Miller and Davis violated Plaintiff Fourth
Amendment right against unlawful arrests and seizures; and
f. An order awarding whatever other equitable relief appears appropriate at

the time of final judgment.
COUNT II
86. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding allegations.
87. Plaintiff had the right under the Fifth Amendment to decline interrogation by the
MSU police defendants and the Jones Day attorneys.
13
88. Plaintiff wisely exercised that right given:
a. the unlawful nature of the arrest, seizure of his cell phones and subsequent
false imprisonment;
b. the retaliatory suspension in violation of his Employment Agreement
immediately after he exercised his Fifth Amendment right with the MSU
Police Defendants; and
c. the subsequent defamatory media coverage apparently instigated by MSU
officials.
89. Plaintiff s exercise of his Fifth Amendment Right to decline interrogation by the
MSU Police Department defendants as well as the Jones Day lawyers, was a significant, if not the
sole, motivating factor in Defendant Simon's, Dantonio's and Hollis' decision not to renew
Plaintiff s Employment Agreement.
90. Defendant Dantonio's inconsistent explanations for failing to renew Plaintiffs
contract establishes that the official explanation is pretextual.
91. Defendants Simon's, Dantonio's and Hollis' decision to terminate Plaintiffs
employment has caused him to sustain economic and non-economic damages that will continue
into the foreseeable future.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court enter judgment against Defendants
Simon, Dantonio and Hollis as follows:
a. Compensatory damages in whatever amount above $75,000.00 he is found

to be entitled;
b. an award of lost wages and the value of fringe benefits, past and future;
c. An award of exemplary and punitive damages;
d. An award of interest, costs and reasonable attorney fees under 42 USC

$ 1988;
e A declaration that the Defendants Simon, Dantonio and Hollis retaliated

against the Plaintiff for exercising his Fifth Amendment Right not to speak
14
to the MSU Police Department and to the investigators from Jones Day law
firm; and
f, An order awarding whatever other equitable relief appears appropriate at

the time of final judgment.
Respectfu lly submitted,
/s/ James K. Fett

By: James K. Fett e39461)
Fett & Fields, P.C.
805 E. Main St.
Pinckney, MI 48169
734-954-0t00
jim@fettlaw.com
Dated: October 12,2018 Attorney for Plaintiff
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff through counsel demands a jury trial on all issues triable to a jury.
Respectfu lly submitted,
/s/ James K. Fett

By: James K. Fett (P39461)
Fett & Fields, P.C.
805 E. Main St.
Pinckney, MI 48169
734-954-0100
jim@fettlaw.com
Dated: October 12,2018 Attorney for Plaintiff
15
Case 1:18-cv-01261-JTN-ESC ECF No. 1-1 filed 11/12/18 PageID.16 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CURTIS E. BLACKWELL, II,
Plaintiff, Case No. 18-cv-

Hon.
v
LOU ANNA K. SIMON, in her individual

capacity as president of Michigan State University,
MARK DANTONIO, in his individual capacity
as Head Football Coach of Michigan State
University, MARK HOLLIS, in his individual
capacity as Director of Intercollegiate Athletics for
Michigan State University, DETECTIVE CHAD
DAVIS, in his individual capacity as a detective
for the Michigan State University Police
Department, and DETECTIVE SAM MILLER,
in his individual capacity as a detective for the
Michigan State University Police Department;
Defendants.
James K. Fett (P39461)
FETT & FIELDS, P.C.
Attorney for Plaintiff
805 E. Main
Pinckney, MI 48169
734-954-0100
734-954-0762-fax
jim@fettlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
INDEX OF EXHIBITS TO
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
Exhibit A: Employment Agreement
Exhibit B: Email
Exhibit C: Response to FOIA Request

. MICHI€A}I STATE UNTVEREITY

TEPARTfiÍEIST OF INTERCOTLEGI¡ATE ATÞILETIC8
EI'IPLOY¡I'IËNT AGREE M ÉilT
Thb Employment Agreement ('Agreement") ls enhred'into'bet¡vçen Mlthlgan Slate UnlverelS

fUnh¡ere&f) and Gurüe Bláckïuell fAdmlnlstnator) to estahllsh the terms arid condltlons whloh
will govem the Admhhtrator's employment by fte Unlven*fty as Þlrcctor of College
.Advanaement
¡nd Perft rnançe.
ln conslderailon of the rnutual prornínes contalnàd fn this ¡{greement,
; tte Unlversity and tho
'
ndmnhtnatorâg¡€e aE fulfowe:
Section l: EMFLOY]IIÍENT; ÐUTlË$
1.0 TErm of Employnent UnlnsEterrninated oarliergsprovlded beloE thls.Agreementehall

t¡b effeotlr¡e, for the period frqm April 1,, 201û Srrough tlÍarct¡ 8l' 2(H7, The Adminletnator
understands ttrat this ,Agreement hag a specific tennlnation date and that the Univercity has nq
oblþatlon to neappolnt or extend the Admhlsffiofs employrnent_ beyond the ending date. Th'e
Adminlotrqtor unders{ande.that hls/her omployçnent ls noten appointment ln lhe tsnue ayslem or
ln any other contlnuing appolntrnent syetern st thê Unlversity.
1.1 Frofesslonal and Pereon¡l Gonduat The Adml¡iotralor understànds thât the decislon to
offer employmeni as an Adrfllnlstr€tar ln the Unilerslty'e Department of lntercollogþte Athletlon'
('Athbfics Deparlrnenf') takea lhto qccount all avallable lnforrnatlon regardlng En fndfüdual'e
profu*slonal and personal aonduct. This Agreement ls conflngent on the Unlverslty having had
üie ,{dminlstratoÉs good falür cooperalion fn learning lnformatlqn needed to ae¡esg hls/her
oandldacy, The Admlnlstrator represents and wanants thet the Admlnlsfator has dlscloeed qll
relávanth6e needÊd to give the Universlty a full snd falr undffstandlng of any past oondud that'
oould advoreety afiest hleÍfier ahilfry io fitlfûl successfully hldher reeponslbilities as an
Administrator,. For e)ørnple, the Unlversl$ requlree that the,Atrnlnistrãtor di.çolo¡e fuots suclì as
protuaelonal rniscqnduoi or eanctions (3qch $. rycAå g PLg Ten vlolatlons), any fcrmal
ê,mptoyment dleoþlinary açfon, any ctull rlghts vlolatlon that'læ/shs sdmiüed 0r was determined
by ä c-ourt or othtir adJudlçqtlve pro-cese.to havq pomryf,ttÊd {49., sexual or raclal hanassrnent or
discriminatlon), any sådous crlmç for whfoh helËhs wìee convlotsd or plod no conlest, ånd any
lmproprieiy invotvlng retudent. .The Adrnlnlstrahr undeÊtande thst failure to dfsa¡oeo such
hfbdaüoir, or any mlsreprresenhtion the Admlnletrator rnakes In connectÍon witlr $uoh disclosure,
shall be cåusÊ ¡or the únluerelty to te¡mfnaþ thls',Agreernent ln eccodan¿e'vulfr $ectlon 4.i
'below. ¡
II Dutles, .The Admlnlsrüator shall devote hfs/hêr best eforts ft¡lltlme.tu the porformance of
perforril the duties
Unlrrerclty dutiee, The Adrnlnistrstor shall llelEd on Exhib¡t A to thls
Agregrnent and suoh olher dutlee €s aE¡ asslgned by the.Dhector of Intorcolleglate Athletica
(',hfrþttes Dlredor') or hls/her deslgnee or as are required by.pollcles and proceduioe of the
Athletlas ÞePartrnent'
.
1,3 ßeae'sþnment Durlng-the t-e|m-qf thþ Agrraement,

thg.Universþ may (a) ohangq
supplennonf, oT efrnfnate ãny gf the Adrnlnlstrâto¡s dutiee; and (b) asslgn tfie e.minletratoito'
-1-
other poeitlons wlth dÌffbrer¡t dutlea that are oonsistent wlth lhc Admlnletrator'e educatlonal
baiftground and experlence. The Adminlstnator's rsfusaf to aoúept any cha¡99 or supplement to,
or üù elirnlndlon ôf;.any dutles or ãny reaeslgnmsnt to otüer dutles shEll be oause for the
Universlty to iermlnEte thiÈ Agreoment In accordancer¡¡lth $ocüon 4.2 below.
1.4 Drlacfpllns, ln the ever¡t the Admhbtidor violates aay Gûvêrnlng Rule ae defined in
Seúion 2.1 of üris Agreernent, or any Univereit¡¿ or Attrletlcs Depaüment_Pollcias or regulatfont,
materlallybreadree rtaAgrcernent, engages ln anyotherforrnsf rnlsconduct, grhas unconesled
psrfonnn'nÉ€ deflclencles- as determhld- by üre Attrletlns Director, the Unlverylty may take_
iflsclptrrary or oorrecüve acllon, $,frhh mair hclude suspendlng fhe Admlnlsffior for a peri.rd of
tlme'(wlf}¡-or wlfhbut'pa$. Prlorto the imposltlon of any.suchdis_dpll¡g o¡ coggottve actlon, the
Rdmtñhtmtor çhall .Ue pi*ltrHed wfth qn opþoñunlty to speak wl[r the Áffiletlg Plr9.to1 Th9 rþht
to dlscipllne or ta[a conectlve actlon under thls $ectlon 1,4 is ln'addltlon lo fte Unfuemlty'a r¡ght to
termlngÞ thls,\greement in accordance wlth Section 4'2 þefow
$Ection 2: COMPLIANÛE !{lllÏH PotlclEr$T,FApç,ru}UREû, nHLFqil!&.AFEULAnoNq,,
2.1 Governtng Rules. The Admlnlebatqr a$Êss to comply w{!t the IICAA end Bþ Ten
uonstltuüons, byÉws, rulee, agrrjements, and lnterpretatlons.{incl$¡ng-: -wlihout limltatlon ths
NC,AA princlpleð for tonduo of lntercolle$ate Athletlco), asruell ae all policles,
procedures, rulee,
or regulalonä sf the Unlversify end lt$ Aürletlcs Deparfnent{cgllegtvety, "Goveming Rules).
2,2 Reporting of Vlolatlons. ln'the ê.rynt tlpt.tlrg Adminlstmtor-beco¡es aware of a

vlolation oi a Golerning Rule, or has reasonable ca¡lse to bellsvo that a violaüon of¿_ Governlng
Rute hae ocouned, the-Administrator shËltreporttl're BårnÊ promptlyto the Athlelics Ðfrector orto
tfre dçsignated Athletlns Departrnent Compliance Offlcer.
Section 3: GomPensetlon; Bengfiþr
S.f 'Salary. The Univerelty.shall pay to theAdminfsttator an annual salary of $1eg'000 in

accordance with stendard Univereþ payroll prooedures
g,? GonflndentAnnuçl Bonus, The UnlverstiV slmll Payqn annualbohuo b the Çrydoyeg
equat to one mlnth's baså eahfy, provided ffrat the Employee has seived'aontinuously ln thalr
ndsgon for the twelve consecutlve rRonthe lmmediately preoed'tlg June lei of the calendar yea¡ in
ivfrn¡i the bonus will be pald. $uch bonug wllÍ be pafd to the Irnployee no latsr than July.3l"' of
the aalendar yoar ln whlch the bonug vEsts'
3.8 Frfnge Eêngffh, The Admlnlsfator Ehall raçeive thegaryeemployrnent fr¡lgg ¡.ne{Þ
accor6eC füHms faöJlty of the Universlff whose appolnlments haw speclffod end dalee wlth
brmg sf ninemonfis orlonger.
g,4 VaoEüon. The Admintstrâtor shall reoetve the sâme amount cf vaaation daye ae lacr¡lty
and academtc staff who ars appolnted ôn an annual year baele. Vacation leave must be :
*à1.'u¡rt-O at a mutually aonven6¡it t¡rnE. Vaoatlon lea¡e le not cumulafl-ve pd may noi be carrled
fo*narà itom'one flsoaiyear to another or lnto futqre em.ploynrent P?Þqs, if any' Payrnent in lleu
oivacation will not ¡e p-rovlded for unused vacEtlon atthe end of this Agteement or upon earller
termination of the Adminfetrator'ç ernployrnen[
S.ñ Course Fee Courtesy. The Admlnlstnabr ehall be ellgistefor aourss.fes eourtesy credlt
fui the Admlnlstrator's sp.ousii and cf¡ildren, es doscrlbed ln arrd eubJeot t0 ihe Unlvsrsl$'s Course
Fee Courtesy Pollcy.
3,8 OutsldE lncofng,
ta) The Adrninietrstor mqy tske advantage of opportunitles to esrn outaide lnæme, but only
in accordanbe wlth thtti section.of the Agreernent,
(b) The Adminlstrator shall oþtsln approval fioni tfie Athletias Dl¡ec'tor before enterlng
inb any agreement of arrsngemerit, cthef ,than a speaking gngagement, thqt wÌll
result iñ m-o.re than S1,000 of ¡ncome frorn .g Êource other thsn the Unlversl$, [n
a6l6on, tn,ì nOrn¡nlsüåbr may endorse prcrducts and esrvlceô only wlth ttre prlor
wrltan approval of the Athletlcs Dlreofor.
I {c) Outslde lnçome actMtles shall nst lnterfere wlth tl-reAdminhhatofs full and corfplete
i
t perfonnanre of hlslher duties and oblþatlon! â! a1t epRloYee of tho Unlverslty,
I
I äonsletent vuith the Admlnfskator's prlrnary obligatlon to the Unlverçity, hiu/her tearn
and íts etudent-athleteå. ,\
J
I
I (d) [n no çvent shall the Admlnlstrator accept or recsfve dkedly or lndlrectly any money,
benefit, br other gratulty whaßoever fom any peËôn, corporation, or other
bensfactor ff such astfon would be ln vlolstion uf a Governlng Rule (eee Seotlon 2.1
above)'
(e) ln no evont shallthe Admtnistratof usurp âny corpomio opportunlties of the University
or engåge in actlvities involvlng confllc{s of intercst with hfs/her dutles or poeÍtÍon,
{r) ûutside lncome.actfvltles are fndependent of the Adminlstraio/e employmcr¡t ai the

Unlver*lty, and the.Unlversity shall have.no responshlllty or llabillty for anyclalrns
arlslng from them,
(g) The Adminlstnstor mey not uee thË University's n8Íìô, 0r any Unlverslty trEdernark,
logo, or indicla ln any outslde. lncome acfivity 9r.âny_9Íhqr non-Univerelfy actlvfty
vriñnóut the prlor wrltien permlssion of ths Athleúlca Dlreçtor and, in'the caee of
Unlveretty trádemarke, the pilor wrlttan permfssion of the Manager of the Unlverslty
UoenÈlng Programs'
{h} The Admlnietrstor shall provlde a wrltien detalled aocount annually to the Unlversitt's
presldent reportlng sll athÍetlcalfy releted incoms snd beneflts *orn sources other
than the Unfwnsity ln accqrdance wlth NOAA Bylaw f 1.2,Ê. The Admlnlstrator shall
prpvlde ths Univdrslty rrvfth reatonsble €¡ccese to ell records, qonfacte* and sther
documents necessary to verlry thh aamunt'
9.7 ttylfhholdtng, Allcompen$qtion pgl{ or_provlded.O{þt U¡lvgrsþ to the Adr.ninlstrator ls

ru¡¡eot tã requlredteductlons and wittrholding for state, locàl and federaltaxes änd as otherwise
j reqüired by hw
¡
_t
:
I
I
: at
J
!
$eclion4: &flnlnafign
'
4,1 Adrninletrator Eerly Terminaüon, The Adminlstator tnay termlnate hls/her_qmployrneni
prlor to the end of thls Agraement by provldlng thç Untvemity ú¡tn a wri$en ncthF of termlnation.
Such tsrminatlon wlll beoôme e'frstlvà on the date the Unfueplty ioælves ncÉtse of termlnation
from the Adrnlnlsfator unless the Uniyewl$ and the Administator âgrco to-snothertermlnatTan
date.
4.2 unfverstty Early Tèrmination for Cauee. The Unlvsultf ryry terminete lts ornployment
of ihe AdmlnlutrEtor for raus€ at any üme wlttrout flnancial or olher llabillty i0 the ,AdmlnlEtratof by
proddlng the Admkrlstrator wfrh written nolics sf termlnation, Ceuse for sudl termlnation may
indude,but ß not llmlted tq (l) cçnvlctlon.d a crlme; (il) víofallon d a¡y Governing Rule ot any
other úreach of a term oi Condition of thls AgroornEnt.tliD åignlffCIánt doflcienoles ln the
performanoe of qpsigned dutles; fv) fallure to catry out astrned dutfes; ({.ft:f or mleuse of
iJnfuers[ty propgrtfi (ril] eÊr¡ous oi re$eatild rnlsconduet (furexsrnple, lnsybg$lnatlon,lmqroqrlety
involving-a striflent, haiassmþnt or discrlmlnation, aote of moral turpitude); {vll) use of aufttotlty to.
o<ploltothers; or glfi) äccepÞnoeof an offerof employmentwlth any other employer'
{..S. Llmlted Uabltlty, ln the evant of termination of ffils Agreement prlor io th¡ end of lts
tenn, all oþlTgdlone oilhe partlop under thls Agreement thallceEse a$ of ths terrninatlon dale.
In no case sñail the Univeråfty nà mble to the Admlnlstretorûr eny lr¡iuryor demøge arising out
of'the terminailon sf thls Aþreement, lncluding without lfinltatÌon the loes .of any collEteral
buslnese opporlrnltÞs (euch àe carnpe, cllnlc.E media âppsaBnces,.'apparalor,shoe conhacts,
coneulllng iátattonstrtps, outside inÊome astr'vfi¡es, or any other þoneflß, p_srqufeltee, or.lncome)
which'ma:y result ftom t¡e terminatlon of tble Agreement prfor þ the end of lb terrn.
$eotíón 5l ltlltgcqllñ¡legus'
S.1 Mdterials and Recolds. All matetlals and lnforniatlon of any kind, ineluding, wlthout
llmltaüon, perconnel records, tëâm lnfonnafion, play books, fllrns, slatlsüas, and rEoultlng flle.sl
furnlghed to the Admlniefator by or on þehalf of the Llnlversis or developed þy the
Àamin¡strnto¡ ln fis perforrnance of the Adm¡nlEtratofs dutie* and msponsbllftles under thls
Àsrgr1r"nf .fur'the' Unlversìty's usê or benefit, or otherwise in connec{lon wlth the
Affil"¡gútbr's employment, in Íiard copy, in electronlc form, or othswlse, are.and shall rÊmaln
ütå iltB pioperty ót tlre Universig, Except in thg.nolïql coürse of the Admlnlstfstor's dulles,
the Admtnlstrator may not ramove, or causo orauthorlze theremoval of, any Unlverslty property
frorn tho UnlvereltY.
E.Z Noüçee. Any noüce. or other oommunica$on.requlred by thi9. Agrcemenl shall'be tn

wrtting and sha¡ ba-deerned effdctlve when peruonally dellvored or flve (6) days aftq¡ be!¡S
qddrsssed to the
äåÈääitÀ¿ln*.,r Unltod stgtee mail, postrage prepald, regleterod.or certlfiad,
paüy ät tt¡e addþse set forth hçlow
'
University: Athletics
Ðl rector of lntercollegriate
223 Kalamaæo Street, Room 2{8
JenlsonFleld House
Mldrlgan State UniversltY
.EaetLãnslng, Ml 488Ë4
4-
Admfnístrator: Adminisirator's AddrÊss on fl€ ln the unlverslg's ûffÌce of Academic

, Human Rqeources
Ë,3 Erüre Agre€ment, Thls ^{greement conetltr¡tes thc enäre egrcement of tire p.nrttes
!a lts subJect matter and çhall supersedÞ any prlor oral or wrlten agreements or
relafrng
negoüatono, which'shafl not be deemed part of this Ágr¿ement. No modlflcatlqns of thls
Agreement or r¡¡atver óf any of lts terms shail þs åffective Unless in writing and dufy sþned by or
on behalf of both parties
5.4 Assignmerrt Nai,ther perfy rflay aeeli¡n any of lt$ Ights or obllgaäonn under thic
,4greernenttr/fhout the Brlor wriiban consÈrrtof the ofher purty,
To evldence thelr âgreement as set forth above, the Adniinlstrator and a'duly authoriznd
'representatlve of Univenity have exeouted thls Agreernentbelow.
ÍT4ICHÍGAN 9TATË UNIVER,$ITY ABIïIINI$TRAIOR
M
IATE Prlnt
ÞATEI DArE: lf ll¡o¡¿

REV:6/12
R
Mlchlgan S tate Unfverslty Exhlblt A- Job Descrlptlon

DepÞrfmeni of lntercollegïate Atlrletlce Rev 01, Pago 1 of 1
,l
Dlrector of College Adrnncemånt and Pe¡îor¡nnnce
Èash Fr{nülun
Charrrterlstlr Þutlae snd Besponsf bllltfes

r Mentor çUrrent sludent-athletes wlth A foß¡s ofi leadershtp, graduEtlon and careet obJectlves,
'
r Asslst ln rhe developmenta4d lrnplernentation of'strateglc plans to rÉclu¡f tCIp student-athlstes tu Mlchigan.state
. iffiïlnjuncrlon wltn tne reàurunÊ staff to organlze allomc¡al and unotficlal campus vlsîts, oversee and
coordlnate Iogisticsfor game day unofflclalvislts. - .
. Add crertfue lnput to the development of recruit malllngs with an em phnsls on all soclgl rnedis outlats lncludïnd the
\Àrrn w. roadulan¡o,n tq webslte.
r CoordÌnatq and provlde lnformatlon from the Off¡ce sf Çompfianee Services to prospective student*athlefes and the
communlty rsgardlng NCAn and Unlversity 4cadeqlc guldelfnes for celtiñlatlon snd admþslon.
. Cooldtnat¿ and serve as tgmp Dlreitor for ell MSU foOtball summqr o¡mps. Thls lnçludes olgänizôtion of alt camp
Itlnerarle* brochures, ánd maillngs promatlng the camp* ln addttfon,hirlng the guest coåchris and worklng closqly
wlth the M$U Câflps offlce to followUnlversityguldelfnes.and proædures,
ó Sehlor one Ð4y,7 on'?, OI/DLtechnlque camp
o Klcklng,EPecletlstCamP
ô. Hlgh Schooland Touth CamPE
r Develop relatlortshlps wlth Youth Footbalf prpgrãmsthrouBhout lhestateof Michlgan'
, promoilng Mlchlgarr State'footballthrough MSU's surnmer football programs.
oth* dutiei as assigned.
'
Quallflratlons
;
I
i
I
¡
ne Llnlng l\s we ullmo rounqallon, lnc. lvlall - r w: rlrvcsllgauvc Irt[Ps://IIl¿1ll.BUUËrç.UUtrl/lrrdlu utvt Í ul-¿wrN-¿vurvuJvrrÉJùYer uq...
Sent: Sunday, May L4,2017 12:35 PM

To: Smíth, Webb
Cc: Acker, Marilyn
Subject: Fwd : Investigative Subpoena
Tony, FYl.
Frank Harrison Reynolds
Attorney
Foster Swift Collins & Smith PC
313 South Washington Square
Lansing Ml4B933-2193
Phone: 517.371.8244
Fax: 517.367.7344
f rey no lds@foste rswift. com
www.fosierswift.com
Begin fonivarded message:
From : "Cheltenham, Michael" <MCheltenham@ingham.org>

Date: May 13,2017 at 1:39:45 PM EDT
ïo : " Reyno lds, Fra nk" < F Reynoids@fosterswift. cûm >
Cc: "Hennessey, Molly" <Ml-{ennessey@ingham.org>
Subject: Re: lnvestigative Subpoena
Frank:
Thanks again for doing this on a Saturday morning. By the way, Molly and I both appreciated Mr.
Blackwell's cooperation today. lf the case is charged we don't anticipate calling him as a witness at
this point. Hopefully, that addresses any concerns you and he may have about possible further
future involvement.
MichaelS. Cheltenham
Assistant Prosecuti n g Attorney
(517) 483-6236
mcheltenham@ingham.org
On May 12, 2017 , at 10:06 PM, Reynolds, Frank <FReynolds@fostei"swift.conr> wrote
Molly, see you in the morning. fhr
Frank H. Reynolcls
tf4 719/2018, 1:45 PM

MICHICAN STATE
UNIVERSITY
DATE: September4,2018
T0: James K, Fett, Fett & Fields, PC - attys@fettlaw,com
FROM: Rebecca Nelson, Director and Freedom of lnformation Act (FOIA) Officer
Michigan State University FotA office lQ¿* ñdm,t
SUBJECT: FOIA Response
This is written in response to your FO|A request dated August 9, 2018, that this Office received on
August 13ü.
Should records responsive to your request exist, they would fall into a category exempt from public
disclosure under the Michigan Freedom of lnformation Act (MlFOIA), Section 13(1)(d), which provides
for the withholding of "records or information specifically described and exempted from disclosure by
statute," While nothing in this response serves to confirm or deny the existence of records responsive to
your request, pursuant to the processing requirements of the MlFOlA, this letter is sent to notify you that
your request is hereby respectfully denied,
The MIFOIA provides that when a public body denies all or a portion of a request, the requester may do
one of the following: (1) submit an appeal of the determination to the head of the public body; or
FREEDOM OF (2) commence a civil action in the court of claims to compel the public body's disclosure of the records.
INFORMATION ACT lf you wish to seek judicial review of any denial, you must do so within 180 days of the date of this letter,
OFFICE lf the court of claims orders disclosure of all or a portion of the public record(s) to which you have been
denied access, you may receive attorneys' fees and, in certain circumstances, damages under the
Michigan State
MlFOlA, Should you choose to file an appeal with the University regarding this response to your request,
University
you must submit a written communication to this Office expressly stating that it is an "appeal" of this
408 West Circle Drive response. ln your appeal, please state what records you believe should have been disclosed to you,
Room I Olds Hall You must also state the reasons you believe any denial of your MIFOIA request should be reversed, This
East Lansing, Ml 48824
5't7-353-3929 Office will arrange for the processing and review of your appeal,
Faxi 517-353-1794
foia@msu.edu
htþ://fo¡a.msu.edu
Pursuant to Section 4(4) of the MlFOlA, the University's procedures and guidelines for processing
MlFO|A requests can be found at http://foia,msu,edu,
MSUFOSI 11 8
MSU ¡s an aff¡rmãt¡ve-action,
equal-opportunity employor,

Michigan State Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Michigan State Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:18-cv-01261-JTN-ESC ECF No. 1 filed 11/12/18 PageID.

LINITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiff, Case No. 18-cv-

LOU ANNA K. SIMON, in her individual

James K. Fett (P39461)

COMPLAINT AND DEMAI{D FOR JURY TRIAL

following complaint against Defendants :

NATURE OF PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS

hauled him off to the MSU Police station.

acknowledged in Court filings that Plaintiff committed no crime.

required "mentoring student athletes".

Judgment Act,28 U.S.C. ç 220I, et. seq.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

U.S.C. $$ 1331, 1332, 1337, 1343, and 1367.

Declaratory Judgment Act,28 U.S.C. ç 220I, et seq.

14. Plaintiff is a resident of Wayne County, Michigan.

Michi gan nonprofi t corporation.

17. Defendant, Mark Dantonio ("Defendant Dantoniooo), is the exceptional MSU

Head Football Coach.

Defendant Dantonio's Recruitment of Plaintiff to Join MSU Football Staff

camp at Southfield High.

the summer of 2013.

Dantonio offered Plaintiff a job on the MSU football staff.

Body football camp into MSU's football program.

the position would be renewable from year-to-year at Defendant Dantonio's discretion.

initial one-year contract for Plaintiff to serve in the Director position.

Plaintiff s Exemplary Performance

through March 31,2017.

raised his salary.

Plaintiff s salary from $83,435 to 129,000.

compensation that Plaintiff earned at MSU.

33. Defendants provided the following explanation for the raise:

With Curtis on staff, we have attracted high-level recruits, which in turn

of the MSU football program to raise Plaintifls salary by $45,000 in20l6.

Defendants Dantonio and/or Hollis.

Players Sexual Assault Incident and Subsequent

occurred at an off-campus party.

Office to report a potential sexual assault incident.

4L No player acknowledged committing a crime or any sort of sexual contact.

stay away from wild parties.

occurred on January 15, 2017 .

he knew about the alleged incident.

then escorted Plaintiff out of his office to the parking lot.

the MSU Police Department's advice of rights form.

Plaintiff s Unwarranted Suspension and Subsequent

Dantonio of the unlawful arrest and detention.

football program or its players pending the outcome of the investigation.

57. At no time did Defendants honor Plaintiff s Employment Agreement which

Hollis] .. . [p]rior to the imposition of any discipline or corrective action."

2017 alleged sexual assault incident involving MSU football players.

firm about the January 2017 sexual assault incident.

of sexual abuse victims.

apparently instigated by MSU offrcials.

1,2017 to May 31,2017.

counsel advising him that:

in the May 22 &,23,2017 emails.

policy violations found by the Jones Day investigators.

into any trouble at the January 15,2017 party.

73. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding allegations.

75. The Fourth Amendment states in pertinent partthat oono

of authority, his freedom of movement is restrained.

Plaintiff had committed a crime.

the MSU Police Defendants had falsely alleged.

sexual assault incident.