LANSING, Mich. (WLNS) — Former Michigan State University football coach Mel Tucker has issued a response through his legal team to Wednesday’s announcement that the school determined he violated its sexual harassment policy.
A report from an MSU hearing officer determined Tucker violated the school’s sexual harassment policy when he masturbated and made sexual comments without rape survivor and activist Brenda Tracy’s consent during an April 2022 phone call.
Tucker’s legal team called the decision “no surprise” and said it was “fraught with countless factual and legal errors.” The response also said the school’s decision would be the subject of an appeal and, if necessary, a subsequent lawsuit.
The response came Thursday morning, shortly before a hearing scheduled for 11 a.m. in 30th Circuit Court regarding Tucker’s legal team’s use of text messages involving Brenda Tracy. Tracy obtained a temporary restraining order against Tucker, which prevented his team from releasing anymore of her communications, earlier this month.
The full response can be read here:
“The school’s decision following a hearing that Coach Mel Tucker was medically unable to attend – and which his lawyers were likewise precluded from attending in his absence – accordingly comes as absolutely no surprise.
“The decision is fraught with countless factual and legal errors, all of which will be the subject of an immediate appeal and subsequent lawsuit if necessary. The appeal will include evidence recently discovered and previously suppressed by Ms. Tracy.
“The Hearing and Decision are purely academic, as the purpose of the Hearing was ostensibly to determine what if any punishment (reprimand, suspension, fine, or termination) would be imposed if the Coach were found responsible. Since the school chose to issue a termination PRIOR to the Hearing, the Decision is of zero practical import and merely reflects the biased and completely dysfunctional administration of the school’s OIE office. The notion that the Hearing would overturn the school’s PRIOR termination, given the documented procedural and substantive error, omissions, and misfeasance, is beyond the realm of reasonable possibility.
“It is worth noting that while Ms. Tracy has attempted to suppress her OWN prior statements on privacy grounds, she provided USA Today the Hearing Officer’s entire 70-page report within minutes of its intended confidential issuance, knowing that the Appeal Process had not yet even begun. This of course speaks to Ms. Tracy’s professed intention to abide by the very Administrative process she invoked.”