Mel Tucker made millions while he delayed the Michigan State sexual harassment case

UPDATE: This article has been updated to reflect when Michigan State athletic director Alan Haller learned the identity of the complainant in the case.

The upcoming hearing in the sexual harassment case against Michigan State University 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.

USA TODAY Investigation:Michigan State football coach Mel Tucker accused of sexually harassing rape survivor

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 1,200-page 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.”

What is likely to happen at 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.’”

How did USA TODAY get the story?

Brenda Tracy informed a USA TODAY reporter about the case in May 2023. Tracy had known the reporter since 2017 from his previous coverage of sexual misconduct in sports and disclosed details of the case confidentially.

In late June, Tracy agreed to give USA TODAY exclusive access to the case file to write a story, on the condition that the news organization wait until the case ended to publish it. Letting the process run its course was important to her, she said. But given the case's high-profile nature and the school’s history of mishandling sexual misconduct cases, she said she wanted a back-up plan in case details became public sooner.

USA TODAY agreed not to publish the story until Tracy gave the green light.

"I voluntarily shared documents with USA Today so that my story could be written and published after the conclusion of the school process, but also just in case my name leaked – which it did," she said Wednesday in a statement.

Why did USA TODAY publish the story when it did?

Rumors of sexual harassment allegations against Mel Tucker had circulated for months before USA TODAY's investigation revealed the details for the first time publicly.

In both July and August, Michigan State Title IX officials informed Tracy and her attorney, Karen Truszkowski that local and national media outlets had contacted campus officials asking about sexual harassment claims against Tucker and filed public records requests for documents about the case, emails Tracy shared with USA TODAY show.

Although the school did not comment and denied the requests, citing privacy interests, a deputy Title IX coordinator for Michigan State emailed Tracy and Truszkowski on Aug. 24 warning that a news story could be imminent.

Olsen, the spokeperson, said generally in sexual harassment cases any such notifications made by the school to complainants are also made to respondents.

In early September, USA TODAY Network reporters in Michigan heard Tracy’s name and specific details about the case mentioned in connection with the rumors. They shared the information to USA TODAY without identifying their sources, and USA TODAY relayed the information to Tracy.

Believing someone at Michigan State had leaked her name, Tracy gave USA TODAY consent to publish the story on Sept. 10.

“I did not want to publish my story in the early morning hours last weekend, but I had no choice because someone outed me to the media,” she said Tuesday in a statement. “I am angry that my right to confidentiality has been violated and I hope that those responsible are held accountable.”

Dianne Byrum, who sits on the college’s Board of Trustees, has called for an investigation into the potential leak.

“I am disturbed and outraged by recent reports indicating the name of a claimant in a sexual harassment investigation was intentionally released in an apparent effort to retaliate against her,” Byrum said Wednesday in an emailed statement. “We need to do everything in our power to ensure victims of sexual assault and abuse can come forward without fear or intimidation and have full confidence their identities and private information will be kept confidential.”

Why was Tucker suspended only after the story came out?

Hours after the story was published, Michigan State Interim President Teresa Woodruff and athletic director Alan Haller held a news conference announcing Tucker’s suspension.

They had learned the details of the allegations for the first time from the USA TODAY story, they said. They suspended Tucker without pay until the case ends, later citing his unprofessional behavior as the grounds.

Woodruff, Haller and the Board of Trustees had known that a complaint had been filed against Tucker soon after Tracy filed it in December 2022, but only Haller new Tracy’s identity, Olsen said. The others knew only that the complainant was a third-party vendor, Woodruff said in an interview with the Lansing State Journal. Woodruff learned Tracy was the complainant during a meeting with the university's general counsel in July, she said – the month the investigation was completed.

In Title IX cases, it is best practice to inform supervisors of accused employees about the existence of an investigation against them but to withhold the details, Olivarius said. Ideally, building a firewall between the Title IX office and an accused employee’s supervisors prevents them from tampering with the case.

Had the university suspended Tucker at the onset of the case, it would have drawn significant attention to the case that victims don’t always want. Olivarius, however, believes the school had cause to suspend him at the onset of the case, given that he had acknowledged masturbating on the call, and that Tracy’s business relationship with the school had been established.

"The central fact he has admitted to," Olivarius said. "That’s as black and white as you can get."

Woodruff said the school handled the case properly.

“This morning’s news might sound like the MSU of old. It was not,” Woodruff said. “It is not because an independent, unbiased investigation is and continues to be conducted.”

Kenny Jacoby is an investigative reporter for USA TODAY covering sexual harassment and violence and Title IX. Contact him by email at [email protected] or follow him on X @kennyjacoby.