Quote:

 

SUNDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2007
Michael J. Pressler, Plaintiff, v. Duke University, Defendant.
State of North Carolina
In the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division
Durham County

Michael J. Pressler, Plaintiff,
v.
Duke University, Defendant.


The defendant employed Coach Pressler as Head Coach of the Duke Men's Lacrosse Team from July 1990 until April 2006, when he was wrongfully fired by the defendant as hereinafter described.

For sixteen seasons, the Coach Pressler built and developed for the defendant, one of the nation's top, Division I lacrosse programs; and for himself, a coaching reputation as a dedicated, demanding disciplinarian for his players.

In those sixteen seasons, the Coach Pressler's teams compiled a 153-82 overall record, and he led the Duke Men's Lacrosse Team to three Atlantic Coast Conference championships, ten NCAA tournament berths, and an appearance in the 2005 Division I men's lacrosse championship game.

During his sixteen years working for defendant, defendant consistently lauded Coach Pressler for his coaching and management of his team, renewed his contracts, increased his pay and benefits, and otherwise recognized the excellent job he was doing.

Coach Pressler is a three-time "ACC Coach of the Year" and the 2005 recipient of the U.S. Intercollegiate Lacrosse Association's "F. Morris Touchstone Award" as the National Coach of the Year.

When defendant wrongfully fired Coach Pressler, his team was ranked by most media as the "Number One" team in all of NCAA Division I Men's Lacrosse.

On June 10, 2005, the defendant renewed the Coach Pressler's contract as the Duke Men's Lacrosse Coach, and the parties entered into a three-year employment contract, effective July 1, 2005.

In March 2006, Crystal Mangum, while substantially impaired and mentally unstable, false accused some members of the Duke Men's Lacrosse Team of assaulting and gang-raping her in a tiny, residential bathroom, despite the presence of other members of the team within the small home.

In a very public response to the media coverage, without any semblance of a fair hearing or any willingness to consider the truth, the defendant wrongfully fired Coach Pressler on April 5, 2006 and publicly and falsely suggested he bore responsibility for the alleged misconduct of members of the Duke Men's Lacrosse Team.

Upon information and belief, within one year preceding the filing of this Complaint, the defendant, acting through its agents, employees and representatives, made about Coach Pressler defamatory and disparaging statements.

The defendant's defamatory misconduct toward Coach Pressler following the wildly implausible, horribly false claims made against his players directly and proximately caused tremendous damage to the Coach Pressler's reputation and economic advantage.

On June 21, 2006, the parties entered into an agreement in which the defendant admitted that it had terminated Coach Pressler without cause and agreed to make this firing effective April 6, 2006.

In March 2007, the parties entered into an Agreement entitled "Confidential Agreement." Because of it's confidentially requirements, Coach Pressler has filed with this Complaint a motion to file the "Confidential Agreement" under seal.

At all relevant times, the defendant employed as its official spokesman, with a title of Senior Vice President for Public Affairs and Government Relations, John F. Burness (hereinafter "the defendant's official spokesman").

In the course and scope of his employment, the defendant's official spokesman made defamatory and disparaging statements against Coach Pressler that were published on April 9, 2007 in Newsday and later posted on a website, www.newsday.com.

The defendant's offficial spokesman falsely told Newsday that Coach Pressler was terminated because he had not adequately supervised his team. Specifically, the defendant's official spokesman claimed justification for the firing of Coach Pressler by stating. "One of the things we certainly have come to understand in this case is that the coaches in general in each of our sports are responsible for the behavior of their teams." The defendant's official spokesman further drew disparaging and defamatory contrasts between Coach Pressler and his recently hired replacement, saying that the difference between Coach Pressler and the new coach was "day an night," and quoting the defendant's President Richard Brodhead as remarking of this difference, "This guy's a mensch. This guy gets it."

The defendant's official spokesman's devastating and false assessments of the plaintiff were defamatory and dispraging, and breached an essential and dependent covenant of the Confidential Agreement.

On June 7, 2007, the defendant, again through its official spokesman, issued for national publication a statement to the Associated Press regarding the firing of Coach Pressler, claiming that "last spring it was essential for the team to have a change of leadership in order to move forward."

The defendant's devastating and false claim that Coach Pressler needed to be replaced in his capacity as the Duke Men's Lacrosse Coach was defamatory and disparaging, and it breached an essential and dependent covenant of the Confidential Agreement.

Upon information and belief, the defendant, acting through its official spokesman, agents, employees and representatives, has made about Coach Pressler additional defamatory and disparaging statements that breach an essential and dependent covenant of the Confidential Agreement.

The Defendant's repeated breaches of an essential and dependent convenant of the Confidential Agreement constitute a material breach of the Confidential Agreement.

The plaintiff is entitled to the equitable relief of rescission of the Confidential Agreement.

Quote:

 

In a very public response to the media coverage, without any semblance of a fair hearing or any willingness to consider the truth, the defendant wrongfully fired Coach Pressler on April 5, 2006 and publicly and falsely suggested he bore responsibility for the alleged misconduct of members of the Duke Men's Lacrosse Team.

Quote:

 

On June 7, 2007, the defendant, again through its official spokesman, issued for national publication a statement to the Associated Press regarding the firing of Coach Pressler, claiming that "last spring it was essential for the team to have a change of leadership in order to move forward."

Quote:

 

Upon information and belief, the defendant, [DUKE!] acting through its official spokesman, agents, employees and representatives, has made about Coach Pressler additional defamatory and disparaging statements that breach an essential and dependent covenant of the Confidential Agreement.

Quote:

 

http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2006/09/where-are-trustees_08.html

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 08, 2006
Where Are the Trustees?

In contemporary higher education, most trustees possess an almost pathological fear of “micromanaging” university affairs. A few groups, most notably ACTA, have resisted this unfortunate trend, recognizing that trustees often need to balance the most extreme voices among the faculty. Even passive trustees, however, have a clear fiduciary responsibility regarding their universities. And most consider preserving the reputation of the institution as among their tasks.

In an ideal world, individual Duke trustees would have spoken out forcefully to remind the public that irresponsible faculty members, such as the Group of 88, did not represent the institution’s values. (An extraordinary CUNY trustee, Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, serves as a model on such matters; so too do the insurgent trustees at Dartmouth.) But at the very least, Duke’s trustees should have acted to safeguard their institution’s reputation and long-term financial position.

But their recent selection of Richard Brodhead as Duke's newest president complicated how the Duke trustees have responded to the lacrosse affair. Picking a president is one of the few clear powers trustees possess—and so choosing Brodhead represented a defining moment for this board. Any aggressive action by the trustees would have constituted an implicit admission that they made a questionable pick in selecting Brodhead as president—even though he has proven unwilling or unable to constrain the worst elements among his faculty or to insist that local authorities respect the rights of Duke students.

(snip)

As Brodhead and the trustees have stood idly by, these rogue faculty members have claimed they should possess absolute power on campus, including the power to regulate intercollegiate athletics—traditionally not an arena assigned to faculty oversight—in an unprecedented fashion. In the process, they have made a mockery of the principle of “shared governance.”

(snip)

Brodhead’s response on the matter? He seems to view his authority to set the moral tone of campus life as consisting of making Olympian pronouncements on the evils of rape, or of locating Shakespeare quotes to describe his personal trials. His refusal to aggressively defend athletics at Duke threatens Duke’s one clear advantage over the Ivies, an element of Duke life that is critical to student recruitment efforts—and, as anyone who watches the students at a Duke basketball game knows, we’re not just talking about recruitment of student-athletes.

(snip)

3.) Future legal liability for Duke. Among the few offenses for which tenured faculty can be fired is harassing students. As time passes, more and more details are emerging about ugly actions by Duke faculty in the few weeks after the lacrosse case attracted media attention.

We already know that History professor Reeve Huston attacked the lacrosse team in his class; and that lacrosse player John Walsh received rude and clearly unprofessional treatment from one of his professors. It’s my understanding that History professor John H. Thompson sent an email to lacrosse players in his class in which he effectively transformed himself into an arm of the state. And, I have no doubt, there were more such instances.

How did Brodhead and the administration respond to this behavior? Initially, they appear to have done nothing. Then, when women’s lacrosse coach Kerstin Kimel complained about widespread unprofessional behavior by faculty, the dean of Trinity College sent a bland email. No evidence exists that Brodhead or any other Duke administrator did anything to check this behavior or to discipline faculty members who acted inappropriately.

Indeed, it appears that Brodhead never even ordered an inquiry into the matter. John Burness, senior vice president for public affairs and government relations, recently stated, “We did hear rumors early on, reports early on, that some faculty members were permitting a potentially hostile situation within a classroom environment.” He gave no indication that these “rumors” were investigated.

Imagine a counterfactual situation in which “rumors” existed that “some faculty members were permitting a potentially hostile situation within a classroom environment” toward gays and lesbians; or towards ethnic, religious, or racial minorities. It appears, alas, that enforcement of Duke’s “harassment” policy depends on the targets of the alleged “harassment.”

The message: widespread harassment by faculty members against students, on the basis of group membership, was occurring, with professors turning themselves into an arm of the state—and the administration did nothing. That’s not a position Duke should feel comfortable defending legally.

The Duke trustees appear to have based their response to this affair on one basic assumption: the case against the three students has some merit. In 99 of 100 occasions, this strategy would be correct. In this case, however, it has turned out to be horribly wrong. And so it’s time for the trustees to reconsider their passive approach.