Unpacking the Michigan State, Mel Tucker legal battle

The next step in the legal duel between Michigan State and Mel Tucker begins Thursday with a Title IX hearing that will weigh allegations of sexual harassment against the fired football coach.

Ultimately at stake, in what figures to be a long road of litigation ahead, is whether the school owes Tucker any of the remaining $80 million on his contract.

On Sept. 27, Michigan State fired Tucker with cause less than three weeks after USA Today reported that the university was investigating a complaint Brenda Tracy, a prominent sexual assault awareness speaker, filed in December with the university’s Title IX office, alleging Tucker engaged in sexual misconduct.

Tracy, a rape survivor, is considered a school vendor because she had been paid $10,000 to share her story with the football team. She alleges that Tucker sexually harassed her during a phone call in April 2022.

According to a report from ESPN’s Adam Rittenberg, Mel Tucker will not attend the scheduled hearing on Thursday because of a “serious medical condition.” He also reported a new letter has been sent to Michigan State trustees and the president outlining “new evidence” that contradicts Brenda Tracy’s claims against him.

To discuss the case’s nuances, On3 caught up with nationally renowned civil litigation and trial attorney David Ring. He has obtained multi-million-dollar verdicts and settlements and has worked on numerous sexual harassment cases. Among his clients is Jane Doe 1, the woman who filed a civil lawsuit against Harvey Weinstein after he was convicted of raping her in a Beverly Hills hotel.

The interview has been lightly edited for context and clarity.

Q: MSU terminated Mel Tucker for cause because it claimed he subjected the school to ridicule and breached his contract’s moral turpitude clause. What is your overall view of the case?

RING: “A total, complete mess – just a mess for both sides. Coach Tucker, it’s not going to end well for him. This is going to go through the twisted, winding path, ultimately, of litigation. He certainly has plenty of arguments on his end that, I think ultimately, will force Michigan State way down the road to reach some sort of resolution with him money-wise.

“Michigan State has the upper hand on the litigation. Tucker’s contract has the moral turpitude clause. It is very broad, and that gives Michigan State a lot of discretion. It’s so broad that they’re going to be in a good position with respect to litigating whether they had good reason to fire him under the contract for cause. I find it interesting that they have this Title IX hearing and they don’t wait for the outcome of that before they fire this guy? Very unusual.”

Q: Tracy filed the complaint in December. Tucker’s attorney said she acknowledged the phone call incident to the school months ago, calling it consensual. Michigan State moved to fire him last month only after details leaked. Does that delay create vulnerability for the school?

RING: “It absolutely does. Here’s another thing that is unusual, a bit suspicious: Why is Brenda Tracy giving the entire Title IX investigation to USA Today? That is highly unusual for one of the litigants, or the complaining witness, to say, ‘Hey, reporter, here’s the entire file for what is going to go down in a Title IX hearing before it ever goes down.’ Super suspicious motives there … Yes, Michigan State’s timing is going to be under the glare of the spotlight. With respect to how quickly they did that, and why didn’t they wait for their own Title IX to take place.”

Q: Tucker last month reportedly requested leave for a “serious medical condition” under the Family Medical Care Act before MSU formally terminated him. Is that a concern for the school as well?

RING: “We all know what that’s about. You see the writing on the wall, you see it’s coming down and that’s the Hail Mary to say, ‘Give me the immunity necklace to wear so maybe they can’t fire me because I’m claiming family medical leave.’ In this particular case, I do not see that strategy working for Mel Tucker.”

Q: Mel Tucker has signaled that he’s looking forward to a discovery process. How averse are schools to wading into discovery waters?

RING: “Michigan State finds itself between a rock and a hard place. They have all these problems of the past [Larry Nassar‘s sexual abuse of more than 100 athletes]. So if MSU says, ‘OK, Tucker, let’s talk settlement,’ I don’t think from a PR point of view how they can possibly do that. They have to puff out their chest, put up a fight and see where this thing goes for a while. They can’t just roll over and pay him $20 million to go away, right? MSU cannot look soft on this … 

“Mel Tucker is going to sue MSU. And that’s going to open up this discovery process. If he’s aggressive, he’s going to get his hands on all sorts of internal emails about this thing. And I think a lot of it is going to be favorable to his version of events.”

Q: In the months after the Tucker-Tracy phone call, Mel Tucker reportedly canceled a subsequent Tracy speaking engagement with the football team. How much risk does that create for Tucker regarding sexual harassment because it could establish retaliation against her?

RING: “Tucker canceling that appearance for Brenda Tracy reflects very poorly on Tucker and the case. That’s going to play into Brenda Tracy’s version of events – that they had this (alleged) phone call, that things immediately went south thereafter, and Tucker, for what appears to be a made-up reason, cancels her appearance at Michigan State. And his explanation for doing so appears to already be falling apart. So that looks bad for Tucker. That looks like, in a sense, he is retaliating against a vendor for not reciprocating his sexual advances, which takes us back to this Title IX hearing, which he’s probably going to lose.”

Q: Had Tucker not canceled Tracy’s appearance, how much more difficult, if at all, would MSU’s case be?

RING: “Under the university guidelines and the Title IX guidelines, because she was kind of a vendor for the university, that puts her in a different position than just someone who happened to meet Tucker. So I think Michigan State has the better argument that she’s protected, that she shouldn’t be sexually harassed, that if he was sexually harassing her, that’s probably enough for them to take disciplinary action against him. Now, does it give them the right to fire him? Well, that’s going to be determined in court. But I agree with you that him (allegedly) canceling her next appearance is really something that’s going to come back to haunt him.”

Q: What’s the best argument in Tucker’s favor?

RING: “I think he’s got an uphill battle. I think his best argument truly is, unfortunately, he’s going to take on Brenda Tracy. He’s going to say, ‘Why did she delete all the text messages? Why did she wait so long to report this? Why did she give the investigation to USA Today?’ If he blows her up, he wins the case … There’s not going to be any winners in this case … 

“I think it comes down to credibility. If Brenda Tracey’s story holds up – and it very well may – then Michigan State has every right in the world to terminate Tucker for what he (allegedly) did. Where I think the other big legal battle will be is that moral turpitude clause – it’s very broad, very vague. And so Tucker’s going to attack that saying, ‘Everything I did was between two consenting adults. It doesn’t bring ridicule upon the university. You brought it upon yourself, or she brought it upon you by giving the whole investigation to USA Today before there’s ever been a decision in the Title IX case. I didn’t do any of that.'”

Q: You’ve seen a lot in your career – what piques your interest in this case?

RING: “If there is in fact litigation, I can already predict in this case that both sides have some really bad facts that they’re going to have to deal with, and some really compelling facts that are going to help them. And that’s going to make it really messy litigation. It’s incredibly high-profile. It’s a man’s career at stake and $80 million he’s owed. Versus if he did this, then he doesn’t deserve any of that. But if he proves that that was a consensual relationship, and he’s lost his career over that, boy …

“That’s what piques my interest: It is such high stakes. There’s so much money involved. And it’s truly, when you boil it down, it’s going to be a he said, she said – with all the text messages deleted by both sides.”

Q: How does this end?

RING: “If I’m a betting person, I think the Title IX hearing goes against Tucker. I think Tucker then initiates some sort of lawsuit against Michigan State and Brenda Tracy. I think that lawsuit gets very, very messy, very uncomfortable for all three sides. And, ultimately, like most litigation, because there’s so much money at stake, I think Michigan State has to pay him some portion of the $80 million to put this thing to bed. But that could be way down the road.”