Download MSU's Response: Review of Sex Discrimination Complaints against Larry Nassar and more Summaries Acting in PDF only on Docsity!
Report of Employee Review
Michigan State University 2019 Resolution Agreement, Section III
Date: September 1, 2020 RE: Employee Action Review Regarding Lawrence Nassar United States Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights Resolution Agreement Docket No. 15-18-
Introduction
Michigan State University (“MSU”) recognizes that former physician Larry Nassar purposely abused hundreds of patients under the guise of medical treatment throughout his career. Since Reporter 1’s report to the Michigan State University Police Department (“MSUPD”) in August 2016 and the Indianapolis Star article in September 2016, MSU has taken many steps and actions to apologize to the survivors, to be accountable, and to invest in education and training to prevent abuse and protect the safety of our communities. MSU again apologizes to the survivors.
As the United States Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) is aware, after Nassar’s abuse was revealed, MSU, as well as certain of its former or current employees, went through numerous independent investigations, inquiries, and reviews, including:
- OCR
- United States Department of Education, Federal Student Aid
- United States Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights
- United States Senate; Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation; Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, Insurance, and Data Security
- United States House of Representatives; Committee on Energy and Commerce; Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
- United States House of Representatives; Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
- Michigan Attorney General
- Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs
- Michigan House of Representatives, Law and Justice Committee and the Appropriations Subcommittee on Higher Education
- National Athletic Trainers Association
With each independent investigation or inquiry, MSU sought to learn and improve.
Indeed, on September 5, 2019, MSU and OCR entered into a Resolution Agreement. As a result of the Resolution Agreement, MSU and OCR outlined numerous actions and requirements that MSU must take. This employee review is one of those requirements. Specifically, under Section III of the Resolution Agreement, MSU is required to:
[R]eview the actions of those current and former employees who had notice or were reported to have received notice of a complaint or concern of sex discrimination committed by either [Lawrence Nassar] or [William Strampel] and failed to take appropriate action in regard thereto. If the University’s review determines that such person did receive a complaint of sex discrimination, the University will review whether that person failed to adequately respond in accordance with then- applicable law and University policies. If so, the University will then determine what further responsive steps, if any, must be taken with regard to that person.
Accordingly, MSU’s review here is limited to Section III of the Resolution Agreement.
Even though this review is expressly focused on Section III, the Resolution Agreement itself contains many more actions that MSU must take to improve and strengthen the university’s Title IX related policies and procedures. Further, MSU is constantly working to improve and has already taken many actions in response to Nassar’s abuse beyond bolstering policies to prevent sexual assault, including:
- Settled civil litigation financially with more than 530 plaintiff-survivors
- Created a Counseling and Mental Health Services Fund to help with the counseling of many survivors and their families so they can continue their recovery and healing
- Improved Relationship Violence and Sexual Misconduct (“RVSM”) and health care policies and procedures at MSU
- Formed the RVSM Expert Advisory Workgroup
- Doubled staff in MSU’s Office for Civil Rights and Title IX Education and Compliance
- Created the MSU Prevention Outreach and Education office to promote safety and improve quality of life by educating members of the MSU campus community on sexual assault and relationship violence, eliminating violence on campus, empowering staff, faculty and students to become advocates for a non-violent community and positively affecting social change
- Added more counselors at MSU’s Center for Survivors
- Created a trauma-informed investigation program through MSUPD
- Created a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner program (opening delayed due to COVID-19)
- Reorganized and increased the scope of MSU’s Office of Audit, Risk and Compliance
- Created a Youth Programs Director to implement and strengthen youth protection policies and training
- Engaged external experts to conduct climate assessments of specific units to identify concerns and make recommendations to inform positive change
- Hired a Climate Response Specialist to assist with ongoing workplace improvement, including training on reporting and OIE processes
- Administered a campus-wide Know More survey, which focused on the culture, perceptions and policies associated with sexual misconduct among undergraduate students, graduate/professional students, faculty and staff
Neither Title IX nor legally binding regulations set forth a legal requirement that a university’s employees must report sex discrimination or sexual harassment of which they are aware to the university. Case law, including the Supreme Court’s Gebser and Davis cases, have provided a framework for evaluating when a university’s response to sexual harassment may subject the university to money damages in a private lawsuit under Title IX,^1 but has not established that university employees are legally obligated to report conduct that may constitute sexual harassment. However, in order to ensure university compliance with Title IX, and in accordance with Department of Education guidance, universities have often and appropriately imposed reporting expectations or requirements on their employees.
For example, prior to 2011, MSU’s Sexual Harassment Policy did not include a reporting requirement for MSU employees. In January 2011, however, MSU’s Sexual Harassment Policy was revised to address reporting, stating:
University employees who become aware of specific and credible allegations of sexual harassment, whether through the report of a complainant or otherwise, should report the allegations promptly to the Title IX Coordinator.
…
To assure University-wide compliance with this policy and with federal and state law, the Office for Inclusion and Intercultural Initiatives must be advised of all reported incidents of sexual harassment and their resolution.
(Sexual Harassment Policy, Revision January 2011.)
Further, in May 2011, MSU’s Sexual Harassment Policy was revised again to add that “supervisors, managers, and other designated employees are expected to promptly report all allegations of sexual harassment to the Title IX Coordinator.” (Sexual Harassment Policy, Revision May 2011) (emphasis added.)
Subsequently, on April 6, 2012, MSU’s then-President issued a memorandum to all MSU employees reminding them of the University’s reporting protocols for “suspected child abuse, child pornography, and allegations of sexual assault.” The memorandum provided in part: “If in your position with MSU, you suspect that a child may be abused or neglected, you must contact the MSU police department immediately.” The memorandum also provided: “If you receive an allegation of sexual assault related to a member of the University community (faculty, staff or student) you must report the alleged assault to the MSU Police Department and [the Title IX
(^1) In Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist ., 524 U.S. 274 (1998), the Supreme Court held that where
a school has “actual knowledge” of an employee sexually harassing a student but responds with “deliberate indifference” to such knowledge, the school itself has engaged in discrimination. In Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education , 526 U.S. 629 (1999), the Supreme Court held that the same standards of actual knowledge and deliberate indifference apply where the sexual harassment is committed by a fellow student rather than an employee.
office]. This would include an allegation that an MSU community member has sexually assaulted a child.” ( Id. )
As OCR is aware, on January 1, 2015, MSU implemented its Relationship Violence and Sexual Misconduct Policy (“RVSM Policy”), which replaced the Sexual Harassment Policy. The RVSM Policy designated most MSU employees as mandatory reporters, providing:
All University Employees, other than those appointed in the offices listed above [as confidential resources] have the following reporting obligation when the employee becomes aware of relationship violence or sexual misconduct allegedly perpetrated by a member of the University community (faculty, staff, or student) or occurring at a University event or on University property.
…
Employees are only required to report relationship violence or sexual misconduct of which they become aware in their capacity as a University employee, not in their personal capacity.
…
The employee must report all relevant details about the alleged relationship violence or sexual misconduct that occurred on campus or at a campus-sponsored event, including the name of the victim, the accused, any witnesses, and any other relevant facts, including the date, time, and specific location of the incident.
(RVSM Policy, January 1, 2015 Revision) (internal references omitted.) In September 2015, the RVSM Policy was amended slightly to provide that all MSU employees were “expected to promptly report”:
All University employees, other than those appointed in the offices listed above, are expected to promptly report sexual misconduct or relationship violence that they observe or learn about and that involves a member of the University community (faculty, staff, or student) or occurred at a University event or on University property.
(RVSM Policy, September 2015 Revision) (internal references omitted.) MSU’s Office of Institutional Equity (“OIE”) was also established in late 2015, replacing the Office of Inclusion and Intercultural Initiatives (“I3”) as the office responsible for institutional compliance with Title IX, including receiving and investigating reports of sexual harassment.
These employee reporting obligations remained in the RVSM Policy, and employees were subject to discipline for failure to report. (RVSM Policy, revision January 3, 2020.) Recently, MSU issued its RVSM and Title IX Policy to comply with the U.S. Department of Education’s May 19, 2020 Title IX Final Rule.
- Former Associate Provost and Associate Vice President for Academic Human Resources Terry Curry;^4
- Unidentified employees of the Office of the General Counsel; and
- Former head coach of the women’s gymnastics team, Kathie Klages.^5
In addition, MSU must review “current or former responsible employees who have been identified by name, title, or position in University memoranda, Title IX reports, or police reports as having received notice of complaints or concerns of sex discrimination committed by either [Nassar] or [Strampel], and failed to take appropriate action in regard thereto.” The Resolution Agreement acknowledges that MSU may be limited in its ability to review based on the availability of evidence or witnesses.
MSU identified the following MSU current and former employees as potentially having received notice of a complaint of concern of sex discrimination by Nassar:
- Former Assistant Track Coach Kelli Bert;^6
- Athletic Trainer Lianna Hadden;
- Faculty Member Dr. Christopher Hannasch;
- Former Athletic Trainer David Jager;^7
- Former Gymnastics Coach Klages;
- Associate Professor Dr. Jeffrey Kovan;
- Former MSU Physician Dr. Brooke Lemmen;^8
- Former Athletic Trainer Tory Lindley;^9
- Former Resident Dr. Christine Liszewski;^10
- Athletic Trainer Thomas Mackowiak;
- Former Intern Athletic Trainer Zach Mouaikel;^11
- Former Department Chair, Radiology, Dr. Suresh Mukherji;^12
(^4) Curry is a tenured faculty member. He resigned his administrative role of Associate Provost and Associate Vice President for Academic Human Resources on July 5, 2020. Consistent with MSU’s Retirement Eligibility Requirements for Faculty and Academic Staff, from July 5, 2020 to July 4, 2021, Curry will serve a one-year terminal consultantship with such duties determined by the Provost. Pursuant to his March 26, 2007 offer letter, Curry will begin a six-month research assignment effective July 5, 2021. Curry will retire from MSU effective January 4, 2022. (^5) Klages retired from MSU on February 14, 2017.
(^6) Bert’s last day of employment with MSU was August 30, 1999.
(^7) Jager was terminated on July 6, 2020.
(^8) Lemmen resigned from MSU in January 2017.
(^9) Lindley last worked for MSU in 2000.
(^10) Liszewski’s last day of employment with MSU was June 30, 2017.
(^11) Mouaikel received his undergraduate degrees from MSU in 2016 and 2017 in athletic training and kinesiology, respectively. During the 2016-2017 school year, he served as a student athletic trainer. Mouaikel’s last day of employment with MSU was June 16, 2017. (^12) Mukherji resigned from MSU, and his last day of employment with MSU was in September 2019.
- Former Post-Graduate Intern Nancy Naradzay;^13
- Former Athletic Trainer Anthony Robles;^14
- Professor Dr. Lionel Rosen;
- Former Professor Dr. Gary Stollak;^15
- Athletic Trainer Destiny Teachnor-Hauk;
- Former Graduate Student Athletic Trainer Henna Shah Trivedi;^16
- Vanessa (last name unknown).^17
Certain additional employees were on notice of a complaint of sex discrimination by Nassar within the context of a 2014 OIE formal investigation initiated by a report from Reporter 11^18 (“2014 Investigation”), but are not otherwise alleged to have independent notice of a complaint or concern of sex discrimination by Nassar that would trigger a reporting obligation. Nonetheless, MSU also reviewed whether current and former employees followed obligations under applicable law and then-applicable MSU policies based on their knowledge of, or involvement with, the 2014 Investigation. The employees included:
- Dr. Lisa DeStefano;
- Dr. Jennifer Gilmore;
- Kristine Moore;
- Mukherji;
- MSUPD Detective Valerie O’Brien; and
- Strampel.
With respect to the 2014 Investigation, on January 30, 2018, MSU sent OCR results of MSU’s internal review of all sexual harassment complaints filed in the 2014-2015 school years, including the 2014 Investigation. (OCR Findings, p. 17.) MSU concluded that the 2014 Investigation was handled properly at that time and that no additional actions or remedies were warranted regarding the 2014 Investigation. Accordingly, pursuant to Section III of the Resolution
(^13) Naradzay is a former post-graduate intern in Athletic Training, and her last day of employment with MSU was April 21, 2014. (^14) Robles’s last day of employment with MSU was May 20, 2005.
(^15) Stollak retired from MSU in 2010.
(^16) Shah Trivedi’s last day of employment with MSU was on or about May 5, 2000.
(^17) MSU records reflect that a Vanessa Gomez was a post-graduate intern with the Athletic Training Department in 2012-2013, but, as explained below, the reporter did not provide a last name for Vanessa, Nassar’s abuse occurred in the 2009-2010 timeframe, and MSU has not been able to confirm the trainer’s identity. (^18) The Reporters identified by number are identified in the same manner as they are in the OCR Letter of Findings (“OCR Findings”).
- Depositions and Recorded Interviews of MSU Employees reported to have received notice of a concern or complaint of sex discrimination by Nassar including Moore, Lemmen, Kovan, Hadden, and Teachnor-Hauk.
- MSUPD Department Reports. (See MSU 02.02.2018 8-00001 to 8-01261; MSU 02.02.2018 8-02513 to 8-02516; MSU-OCR 03.09.2018 0004349 to 0004747; MSU-OCR 04.16.2018 0010862 to 0010937; MSU-OCR 04.16.2018 0014711 to 0017183; MSU-OCR 04.16.2018 0018008 to 0018091; MSU-OCR 07.09.2018 0018453 to 0018524; MSU-OCR 07.16.2018 0018971 to 0019000; MSU-OCR 09.28.2018 0020202 to 0020208; MSU-OCR 11.27.2018 0023417 to 0023503.)
- Department of Michigan Attorney General, December 21, 2018, Status of Independent Counsel’s Investigation into [MSU]’s Handling of Larry Nassar Matter (“AG Update”).
- MSU also considered information that was provided during interviews by OCR when it was on-campus and by the Michigan State Police.
Evidentiary Standard
In investigations concerning a potential violation of the Sexual Harassment or RVSM policies, MSU has utilized the preponderance of the evidence standard. The same standard is utilized when analyzing whether an MSU employee failed to follow MSU mandatory reporting protocols in violation of those policies. Under the standard, a person is presumed not to have violated the policy unless a preponderance of the evidence establishes a policy violation. A preponderance of the evidence is the amount of evidence that causes one to conclude that an allegation is more likely true than not true. If the evidence on a particular allegation is equally balanced, it has not been proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
Analysis Pursuant to Section III
By way of background, Nassar is a former osteopathic physician and associate professor of MSU’s College of Osteopathic Medicine (“MSUCOM”). On September 16, 2016, Nassar’s employment was suspended, and on September 20, 2016, MSU terminated Nassar.
Nassar was indicted in state court in November 2016, on multiple state charges of “sexual assault of a child” that spanned from 1998 to 2005. He was charged with 22 counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct with minors in two counties in Michigan. The allegations asserted that Nassar had molested minors at his home, MSU’s Sports Medicine Clinic, and elsewhere, including under the guise of medical treatment. In December 2016, Nassar was arrested and indicted by a federal grand jury on child pornography charges.
On July 11, 2017, Nassar pled guilty in federal court to (a) receiving child pornography in 2004, (b) possession of pornographic images of children dating from 2004 to 2016, and (c) tampering with evidence by destroying and concealing the images. On November 22, 2017, Nassar pled guilty in state court to seven counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct with minors under
the age of sixteen. On November 29, 2017, he pled guilty in state court to three additional counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct.
On December 7, 2017, the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan sentenced Nassar to 60 years in federal prison for the pornography charges. On January 24, 2018, the Ingham County Circuit Court sentenced Nassar to 40 to 175 years in prison for the sexual assault of minors. On February 5, 2018, the Eaton County Circuit Court sentenced Nassar to 40 to 125 years in prison for three additional counts of criminal sexual assault. The state sentences will run concurrently, but the federal and state sentences are to run consecutively.
Starting in December 2016, various state and federal lawsuits arising from Nassar’s conduct have been filed in state and federal court against Nassar, MSU, current and former employees of MSU, USA Gymnastics, Twistars Gymnastics Club, and the United States Olympic Committee. On May 16, 2018, MSU settled lawsuits filed against MSU brought by 332 Nassar survivors. Subsequently, lawsuits against MSU and/or certain employees or former employees of MSU have also been filed by other Nassar survivors, and remain pending in the Michigan Court of Claims, Ingham County (Mich.) Circuit Court, and the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan.
A. Relevant Documents
i. OCR Findings
On September 5, 2019, OCR issued its Letter of Findings following its directed investigation of MSU’s Title IX compliance regarding the employment and conduct of Nassar. As such, MSU is guided by OCR’s Findings and the employees identified therein. OCR identified the following MSU employees as receiving a report of potential sex discrimination by Nassar:
- Former Assistant Coach Bert (OCR Findings, p. 7)
- Athletic Trainer Hadden ( Id. )
- Former Head Women’s Gymnastics Coach Klages ( Id. )
- Former MSU Physician Lemmen ( Id. )
- Former Athletic Trainer Lindley ( Id. )
- Former Athletic Trainer Robles ( Id. )
- Athletic Trainer Teachnor-Hauk ( Id. pp. 7-8)
- MSU Physician Hannasch ( Id. p. 8)
- Athletic Trainer Mackowiak ( Id. )
- Former Athletic Trainer Mouaikel ( Id. )
- MSU Physician Kovan ( Id., p. 12)^20
As part of its investigation, OCR interviewed numerous MSU employees. All MSU employees interviewed denied or could not recall receiving any reports or concerns about Nassar’s
(^20) As set forth above, OCR also reviewed the 2014 Investigation and identified various current and former employees in the context of their role in the investigation. OCR’s Findings does not allege that any of these employees received a report of sex discrimination by Nassar except through their involvement in the 2014 Investigation.
11 was making a complaint of not only harassing or discriminatory conduct, but of sexual assault, Moore promptly reported the matter to MSUPD. (MSU-OCR 04.16.2018 0015250.)
On May 29, 2014, Moore and MSUPD Detective O’Brien co-interviewed Reporter 11. Reporter 11 reported that she had an appointment with Nassar for hip pain and that after requesting that the female resident in the examination room leave, Nassar inappropriately touched and massaged near her vagina, on her breast, and on her buttocks. Further, Reporter 11 stated that she told Nassar to stop and that he was hurting her and that toward the end of the appointment, Nassar made a comment that he could continue to treat her, even if she was on her period. The day after the appointment, Reporter 11 called Nassar’s office and cancelled her next appointment, advising the desk receptionist that she was cancelling “because she felt violated.” (MSU 02.05.2018 8- 02356-58.)
On June 9, 2014, Moore interviewed Nassar, and he stated he did not recall the specific appointment. However, Nassar did not dispute it was possible he manipulated Reporter 11’s breasts during his examination of her shoulder, as it was medically necessary. Nassar also did not dispute touching near Reporter 11’s vaginal area, stating that if a patient presented with hip pain, he would have manipulated in the pelvic floor area, including the sacrotuberous ligament (“STL”), a ligament very closely connected to the pelvic floor area and, thus, close to the vagina. Nassar reported that touching near the vaginal area to work on the STL is common. Nassar generally confirmed that a patient may have stated that he was hurting them, and Nassar stated that he would understand that to mean that the specific touch was hurting, not that he should stop the entire manipulative medicine examination. Nassar also stated that he would have advised a female patient that her menstrual cycle would not be problematic in providing treatment, as young women sometimes become embarrassed about such an issue. (MSU 02.05.2018 8-02361-63.)
Consistent with then-standard operating protocols, and because Nassar did not dispute the possible or alleged medical manipulation, claiming it was medically necessary, MSU’s I3 also interviewed four professionals. Moore interviewed MSU osteopathic doctors Lemmen, DeStefano, and Gilmore, and MSU athletic trainer Teachnor-Hauk. (MSU 02.05.2018 8-02365- 70.) Nassar, as a respondent in the investigation, identified Lemmen and Teachnor-Hauk as individuals who may be able to provide relevant information. Strampel identified to I3 Drs. DeStefano and Gilmore as being able to explain whether the manipulation was medically necessary. Based in part on the statements of all four of these medical professionals, I3 concluded that Nassar’s touching was medically appropriate and not sexual in nature. (MSU 02.05.2018 8- 02375.)
MSU issued the final report to the parties on July 18, 2014, inviting Reporter 11 to respond. Neither Reporter 11 nor Nassar provided a response to the report and the file was closed at that time. MSU’s report, with recommendations, was forwarded to MSUCOM’s Dean, Strampel, as the unit administrator, to consider any next steps or procedures for the department and any additional response required as to Nassar.
ii. Other OIE Investigation Reports
On August 25, 2016, Reporter 1 contacted MSUPD to report that from February to April of 2000, Nassar sexually assaulted her when she was fifteen years old under the guise of medical treatment. The matter was also referred to OIE. (MSU 02.05.2018 8-01897.) MSU immediately suspended Nassar. On September 8, 2016, OIE interviewed Nassar, who denied Reporter 1’s allegations, disputed her account of what occurred, and stated that he would have been providing legitimate medical treatment. Subsequently, on March 17, 2017, OIE determined that the preponderance of the evidence supported that Nassar had violated MSU’s policies prohibiting sexual harassment and that Nassar’s conduct was sexual in nature, regardless of whether it was allegedly done for a medical purpose. (OCR Findings, p. 17.)
OIE continued to receive numerous sexual misconduct complaints regarding Nassar. (OCR Findings, p. 6.) OIE conducted five formal investigations into Nassar, each of which determined that he had violated MSU policies by a preponderance of the evidence. (OCR Findings, p. 18.)
ii. Statements By Claimants in Lieu of OIE Investigation
During the 2016-2017 academic year, MSU decided, out of respect for survivors, that claimants with a report of violations of the RVSM Policy by Nassar would be offered the option to provide a statement in lieu of participation in a formal investigation, at the claimant’s discretion. (OCR Findings, p. 18.) OIE considered all of the statements and utilized them to review internal policies and procedures, even if OIE did not conduct a formal investigation. The following claimants reported that an MSU employee may have been on notice of sex discrimination by Nassar.
On September 28, 2016, OIE interviewed Reporter 9. Reporter 9 stated that her athletic trainer, Mackowiak, may have recommended that she treat with Nassar for lower back pain. After her appointment, Mackowiak scheduled another appointment with Nassar for Reporter 9, but Reporter 9 informed Mackowiak that “the doctor made [her] uncomfortable” and she “didn’t want to see him anymore.” Reporter 9 stated that she did not give Mackowiak any further details. (MSU 02.05.2018 8-01509.)
On December 6, 2016, Reporter P^22 reported to OIE that she was hired by Nassar as a simulated patient in 2008 or 2009. Upon receiving a pelvic examination by Nassar, Reporter P stated she was very uncomfortable and told her supervisor “Rebecca” (later identified as Rebecca Cass) within MSUCOM. Specifically, Reporter P stated that she was uncomfortable that Nassar had instructed students to speak to lower income patients differently than affluent patients. Reporter P also stated, however, that she was not uncomfortable with Nassar with regard to his medical examination on her and she understood what the role of simulated patient entailed. Accordingly, MSU has determined this report is outside of the scope of the review contemplated by Section III of the Resolution Agreement because it is not a complaint or concern of sex discrimination by Nassar. (MSU 02.05.2018 8-01751.)
(^22) The Reporters identified by letter were not identified in the OCR Findings.
Several MSUPD reports indicate that current or former MSU employees may have been made aware of concerns of sex discrimination by Nassar prior to August 2016. First, MSUPD investigated the complaint of misconduct by Reporter 11 alongside OIE. O’Brien was the lead MSUPD investigator. On May 29, 2014, O’Brien and Moore interviewed Reporter 11 together and O’Brien interviewed Nassar later the same day. On July 1, 2015, MSUPD forwarded its report to the Ingham County Prosecutor’s Office, requesting a warrant for Nassar’s arrest. On December 15, 2015, the Ingham County Prosecutor’s Office declined to authorize criminal charges against Nassar because “after careful review of the Victim’s statement, the Defendant’s statement and the videos of medical procedures submitted, it appears that what the Dr. is doing is actually a very innovative and helpful manipulation of a ligament located in the butt cheek and lateral to the vaginal opening.... I called Det. Johsnon [ sic ] and let her know she should make contact with the Dr. and explain that he should have a witness and do a better job explaining his techniques as he sees patients.” (MSU-OCR 04.16.2018 0015263.)
On February 8, 2017, Reporter Q reported to MSUPD that in June 2015 she reported a concern regarding Nassar’s treatment to her then-boyfriend and MSU athletic trainer, Jager. Specifically, she reported that Nassar groped her breasts, that she told Jager, and that he stated it was a proper medical procedure. (MSU 02.02.2016 8-00875.)
On November 1, 2016, Reporter 12 reported to MSUPD that in October 2015 she informed the referring doctor, Hannasch, that Nassar had “touched areas of [her daughter] that she was not comfortable with.” (MSU 02.02.2018 8-00123.) Hannasch was reported to have replied that he worked with Nassar and was aware that he does “need to get into private areas.” ( Id .) Reporter 12 did not state that she communicated with Hannasch about her concerns in any greater detail.
On February 8, 2017, Reporter 2 told MSUPD that sometime in 1997, when she was about 16 years old and participating in a program called Spartan Youth Gymnastics, she reported to Klages that Nassar touched her inappropriately. (OCR Findings, p. 9; MSU-OCR 04.16. 0016030-35.) Reporter 2 stated that Klages responded that she could not imagine Nassar doing anything inappropriate. Klages, according to Reporter 2, then called Reporter 2’s teammates into her office to ask each if they had any similar concerns about Nassar. Reporter 2 stated one teammate confirmed that she too had been touched inappropriately by Nassar. Reporter 2 stated that Klages provided her with complaint papers to consider, but said, “Well, I could file this but there’s going to be very serious consequences for you and Dr. Nassar.” (MSU-OCR 04.16. 0016033.) Reporter 2 stated she assumed she was incorrect and, therefore, did not file a complaint at that time and instead was treated by Nassar again thereafter. Reporter 2 stated that Nassar confronted her about her concerns she raised with Klages.
On February 22, 2017, Reporter I reported to MSUPD that in 2010, she was aware that athletic trainers Teachnor-Hauk and Naradzay knew that Nassar utilized penetration techniques. Further, she reported that she told her sports psychologist, Rosen, that Nassar used penetration in his medical examinations, and Rosen did not tell her it was wrong or improper. (MSU-OCR 04.16.2018 0016137.)
On April 3, 2017, Reporter J reported to MSUPD that she reported Nassar’s intervaginal treatment to Rosen’s understudy named “Kristina” (later identified as Christine Liszewski) during a sports psychology counseling session. Reporter J stated that she told Liszewski that when Nassar penetrated her it reminded her of another assault. (MSU-OCR 04.16.2018 0016323.)
On April 10, 2017, Reporter 6 reported to MSUPD that she played volleyball at MSU from 2000-2003. (MSU-OCR 04.16.2018 0016337.) In 2000, Reporter 6 treated with Nassar. Prior to the treatment, Reporter 6 stated that she was aware that Nassar’s treatments were “uncomfortable” because “word got around” with teammates that Nassar applied pressure to private areas. However, when Nassar vaginally penetrated her, she was concerned. Reporter 6 advised her athletic trainer, Hadden, that Nassar made her feel very uncomfortable, but did not tell Hadden that he vaginally penetrated her with his fingers. ( Id. ) Reporter 6 stated that Hadden “was very supportive and told her if she felt uncomfortable she should report it.” On May 1, 2017, Reporter 6 provided MSUPD with a written statement. In the statement, Reporter 6 stated that she decided to go to Hadden to learn how to file a general complaint about an uncomfortable doctor’s visit. As to Hadden, Reporter 6’s statement provided:
My trainer, Lianna or “Lee-Lee,” was one of the most caring, concerned, and wonderful people you could meet. I don’t remember all the details of our conversation, but I remember her being very patient, appropriately concerned, but also sober minded (and understandably so). I say sober minded because she knew I was young and immature. (emphasis in original.) For example: One time, I remember running into the training room sobbing one day because I was regretful of a kissing encounter I had with my boyfriend. From her perspective …. [ellipses in passage] She sees me clearly upset, learns it’s over a physical encounter with my boyfriend, and in light of such a reaction she’s fearful of the possibility I’ve been physically assaulted … [ellipses in passage] only to find out her young athlete (ME) was a baby Christian wrestling with her own personal conviction and disappointment that she had crossed a self-imposed boundary line.... All this to say, she knew me well.
So when I came to her asking if I could file a general complaint, yes… [ellipses in passage] she treated the situation with both seriousness and sober-mindedness.
Lianna tried to walk me through the process the best was she knew how. She asked me all sorts of questions (“Did Dr. Nassar do something you thought was criminally wrong?” “Did he hurt you?”). I remember trying to answer the questions as truthfully as possible, but I was so scared of revealing shameful details that I didn’t give her much to go on.
(MSU-OCR 04.16.2018 0016342.) Reporter 6 further stated that Hadden provided her with an understanding of the reporting process and that it would entail an investigation into the accusations. Reporter 6 decided not to file a complaint.
On October 27, 2017, Reporter 7 reported that in or around 2002, she told her teammate something to the effect of she was about to get “fingered” by Nassar. According to Reporter 7, an
Cass, Lemmen, Moore, DeStefano, Gilmore, Strampel, and Dietzel; see also Denhollander, et al v. Michigan State University, et al , W.D. Mich. Case No. 1:17-cv-00029.)
On December 21, 2016, Reporter 5 filed a now-dismissed complaint against Nassar and MSU in Los Angeles Superior Court. ( Thomas Lopez v. Dr. Larry Nassar and Michigan State University , Docket No. BC644417.) In her complaint, Reporter 5 alleged that in 1999 or 2000 she complained to three athletic trainers after being treated by Nassar, without any detail as to what she reported to the trainers. The trainers were later identified as Shah Trivedi, Hadden, and Teachnor-Hauk. Further, Reporter 5’s complaint alleges that Teachnor-Hauk told Reporter 5 that what happened to her was not sexual abuse, Nassar was a world-renowned doctor, and that Reporter 5 was to continue to treat with Nassar.
In February 2018, Reporter 4 reported that in 1999, while a student-athlete at MSU, she complained to athletic trainers and her track coach, Bert, that Nassar touched her in her vaginal area when she sought treatment for an injured hamstring. ( See Denhollander, et al v. Michigan State University, et al , W.D. Mich. Case No. 1:17-cv-00029.) She did not provide names of the athletic trainers.
Reporter 13, a former associate professor at MSU, claimed that in 2015, she reported to staff at MSU’s Sports Medicine Clinic that Nassar acted inappropriately during a medical examination. Reporter 13 was interviewed by MSUPD and OIE, but Reporter 13 did not report that she informed a staff member of her concerns to any University department. Reporter 13’s allegations were set forth in the Larissa Boyce et al v Michigan State University et al , matter before the United States District Court, Western District of Michigan, Lead Case No. 1:17-cv-00029. Reporter 13 has not identified any MSU employees who had notice of sex discrimination by Nassar.
v. Victim Impact Statements
During Nassar’s criminal sentencing hearing in Ingham County, 204 individuals provided impact statements. Of these statements, three individuals stated that a current or former MSU employee may have been on notice of sex discrimination by Nassar. On January 16, 2018, as set forth above, Reporter 6 stated she went to her trainer, Hadden, to ask how to file a general complaint about a doctor’s visit being uncomfortable. Reporter 6 stated that Hadden treated the complaint with seriousness and asked her about the procedure in detail. In the end, Hadden told Reporter 6 that if she did file a complaint, it would involve an investigation. Reporter 6 decided not to report it. Reporter 6 did not state she provided Hadden with any detail about what made the visit uncomfortable.
On January 17, 2018, Reporter 11 stated that she reported a concern to Kovan and interviewed with Moore during I3’s investigation.
On January 19, 2018, Reporter 2 stated that she and a teammate reported their concerns to Klages in 1997.
vi. Criminal Trial Transcripts
MSU reviewed the preliminary examination and trial transcripts of the criminal trial of Klages, People v Klages, No. 18-825-FH, and Strampel, People v Strampel , No. 18-479-FH-C30.^23
At the Klages preliminary examination hearing and trial, Reporter 2 and Reporter M testified that in 1997, they met with Klages and told her that Nassar had abused them. (PE Tr., pp. 20-24; 58-61.) Klages reported to police that she could not remember such a meeting. On February 14, 2020, Klages was convicted by a jury of one felony and one misdemeanor for lying to the police.
vii. Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (“LARA”) Hearings
LARA has opened seven investigations into current and former MSU employees regarding alleged notice of a complaint or concern regarding Nassar. These investigations focused on the license of a health professional to determine whether or not the licensee violated the Public Health Code. The current or former employees investigated include:
- Kovan (case closed July 10, 2018, no finding);
- Lemmen (case closed November 27, 2018, no finding);
- Dietzel (case closed July 27, 2018, no finding);
- Stollak (license surrendered);
- Strampel (license surrendered);
- Hadden and Teachnor-Hauk (consolidated hearing held on January 21, 22, and 23, 2020; final determination pending.)
During the Hadden and Teachnor-Hauk hearing, Reporter 6 testified that she expressed discomfort about her examination with Nassar to Hadden. Reporter 6 stated that: she did not provide specifics and her only recollection is that Hadden was comforting, (LARA Transcript, January 21, 2020, p. 36); she told Hadden she was uncomfortable and simply was requesting guidance about how to file a report of her discomfort, ( Id. p. 37); she was scared and did not provide any specific details to Hadden about her discomfort, ( Id. p. 39); Hadden told her that if she feels something criminally wrong occurred she needed to say something to her, and Reporter 6 did not provide Hadden with additional detail, ( Id. p. 42-43.); and she never told Hadden that Nassar penetrated her during treatment, ( Id. pp. 88). Reporter 6 further stated, “I feel like if I had the same clarity then about what happened as I do now and really opened up to her, she would have waged war on Nassar on my behalf.” ( Id. pp. 88; 98.)
Reporter 5 also testified at the hearing, stating: “I can’t tell my story about Nassar without you two, you were there for me. You saved me from having to go and see the doctor when I didn’t want to.... It’s hard for me to sit here and say these things because I feel like I’m making you out to be a super bad person, but you were there for me.” (LARA Transcript, January 23, 2020 pp.
(^23) The Strampel criminal trial does not provide any additional allegation that a current or former MSU employee was on notice of a complaint or concern of sex discrimination by Nassar. The trial did include testimony concerning the 2014 Investigation, which is consistent with other materials reviewed by MSU.
