IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

Jane Doe I, Jane Doe II,
Jane Doe III, Jane Doe IV
Jane Doe V, Jane Doe VI
Plaintiffs,
v.
The University of Tennessee,
The Director of
The Office of Student Conduct & Community
Standards (in his or her official capacity)

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. ___________
COMPLAINT
JURY DEMAND

_____________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
_____________________________________________________________________________________
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND INTRODUCTION
1.

This is a civil action for declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief for injuries

Plaintiffs Jane Does I, II, III, IV, V, and VI sustained as a result of the acts and omissions of The
University of Tennessee at Knoxville (“UT” or the “University”) relating to sexual assaults involving
UT football and basketball players (five rapes of female UT students) 1 and the University’s
deliberately indifferent actions before the rapes and afterwards in response in violation of Title IX
of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. (“Title IX”) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiffs also sue under the Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Clause 2, of the United States
Constitution to bar UT from application and enforcement of a state statute and official policy (the

1

Three rapes were by UT football players, one rape by a UT basketball player and one rape by a non-athlete
UT student where the underage victim became intoxicated with alcohol provided by football players at a party.

1 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 1 of 64 PageID #: 2060

 Tennessee Uniform Administrative Procedure Act, T.C.A. § 4-5-101 et seq.) in sexual assault cases
on campus in derogation of Title IX and the Campus Save Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1092 (2012 (that preempt
the TUAPA).2
2.

Plaintiffs assert two separate theories of liability for damages under Title IX: 1)

deliberate indifference and clearly unreasonable acts and omissions that created a hostile sexual
environment to female students before a sexual assault on a student by a fellow student by conduct
and policies making a student more vulnerable to sexual assault itself; and 2) deliberate indifference
and a clearly unreasonable response after a sexual assault that causes a student to endure additional
harassment.
3.

UT intentionally acted by an official policy of deliberate indifference to known sexual

assaults so as to create a hostile sexual environment. UT had actual notice (and itself created) a longstanding, severely hostile sexual environment of rape by male athletes (particularly football players)
that was condoned and completely unaddressed by UT officials, including Chancellor Jimmy Cheek
(“Cheek”), Athletic Department Director and Vice-Chancellor Dave Hart (“Hart”), and head
football coach Butch Jones (“Jones”).
4.

UT intentionally acted in a clearly unreasonable fashion in violation of Title IX by acts

of custom and an official policy of: deliberate indifference to sexual assaults; direct interference with
the disciplinary process in favor of male athletes who were charged with rape; directly supporting,
maintaining and controlling environments for athletes in the major sports of football and basketball
that encouraged underage drinking, drug use and rape; and unlawfully discriminating against victims
of sexual assault and fostering a hostile sexual environment by the misuse of a one-sided Tennessee
Uniform Administrative Procedures Act (“TUAPA”) procedure.
5.

UT’s lack of promptness in investigating and remedying campus sexual assaults further

constitutes deliberate indifference, because these investigative delays by UT helped to create the
hostile sexual environment for discriminatory acts of these third parties by UT’s repeated failure
timely to remedy.
6.

The TUAPA procedure, was (and is, if not declared in violation of Title IX and

preempted by the Campus Save Act (enacted as VAWA Section 304)) a deliberate rule and policy
2

Burgio and Campofelice, Incorporated v. New York State Department of Labor, 107 F.3d 1000, 1006-07 (2d Cir.
1997); Wright Electric, Incorporated v. Minnesota State Board of Electricity, 322 F.3d 1025, 1028 (8th Cir. 2003).
2 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 2 of 64 PageID #: 2061

 decision by UT to allow perpetrators of sexual assaults, particularly varsity football and basketball
players, to delay and altogether avoid sanctions and discipline for sexual assault by the use of a
discriminatory TUAPA procedure that allows only accused perpetrators of sexual assaults (and not
victims) to have the right of confrontation, cross-examination and a right to an evidentiary
administrative hearing.
7.

UT, in clear violation of Title IX and the constitutional right to equal protection, is

unique among U.S. colleges and universities by virtue of its use of a one-sided TUAPA administrative
hearing procedure (“contested case”) that denies victims the rights to a hearing and to the same
equal procedural, hearing, and process rights as given to perpetrators of rape and sexual assault. UT
further acted (and acts) intentionally and in clear violation of Title IX by acts of custom and an
official policy whereby Chancellor Cheek appoints administrative judges and hearing officers
favorable to athletes and then also decides any appeals from TUAPA hearings in a clear conflict of
interest. A hostile sexual environment was created by this procedure and policy as varsity athletes
were condoned and encouraged to have parties with alcohol and drugs, entertain recruits, provide
alcohol to underage female students and commit sexual assaults with no discipline or deterrence
against committing sexual assaults as perpetrators of assaults faced no serious consequences.
8.

Athletes knew in advance that UT would: support them even after a complaint of

sexual assault; arrange for top quality legal representation; and then direct them to the TUAPA
process, which was and continues to be a one-sided and unfair system of adjudication. Varsity
athletes knew that they (not victims) would be fully supported by the UT athletic department and
administration’s process and that the perpetrators and

athletic department

could deter and

discourage victims from pursuing complaints by: having their lawyers depose female victims;
subjecting victims to extensive discovery; cross-examining sexual assault victims in a full blown
hearing before an administrative law judge(appointed by Cheek); and delaying the investigation
process until the athlete perpetrators transferred to another school or graduated without sanction
or discipline. This is precisely what happened in the cases of Does I, II, IV, and VI and is the very
reason that UT Vice-Chancellor Tim Rogers resigned from UT in March 2013 in protest over the
violation of Title IX and the UT administration’s and athletic department’s deliberate indifference
to the clear and present danger of sexual assaults by UT athletes.
9.

UT administration (Chancellor Cheek), athletic department (Dave Hart) and football

3 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 3 of 64 PageID #: 2062

 coaches (including head coach Butch Jones) were personally aware (as “appropriate persons” under
Title IX) and had actual notice of previous sexual assaults and rapes by football players, yet acted
with deliberate indifference to the serious risks of sexual assaults and failed to take corrective actions
despite express warnings and notice from UT Vice-Chancellor Tim Rogers and direct knowledge of
numerous prior instances of sexual assaults. Under Simpson v. Univ. of Colo. Boulder, 500 F.3d 1171,
1173 (10th Cir. 2007) UT had “actual notice” under Title IX and acted clearly unreasonably because
of UT’s prior actual knowledge of sexual assaults by male athletes. The “before” theory of university
liability for the rapes themselves recognized in Simpson has specifically been adopted by a Tennessee
federal court in Lopez v. Metro Gov’t, 646 F. Supp. 2d 891, 917-918 (M.D. Tenn. 2009). 3
Tolling Agreement with the University of Tennessee
10.

The University of Tennessee and Plaintiffs entered into a “Tolling Agreement,” that

tolled the applicable statute(s) of limitations such that this suit is timely filed.

3

“Title IX liability can flow from two ‘harassment’ time periods: (a) when a school exhibits deliberate
indifference, before a harassing attack on a student by a fellow student, in a way that makes the student
more vulnerable to the attack itself; or (b) when a school exhibits deliberate indifference after an attack,
that causes a student to endure additional [*918] harassment.” . . . see, Simpson v. Univ. of Colorado, 500
F.3d 1170, 1173 (10th Cir. 2007) (summary judgment in Title IX case inappropriate where claim was that
coach failed to adequately supervise high school recruits because even before female students were sexually
assaulted ʹʹthere were a variety of sources of information suggesting the risks that sexual assault would occur
if recruiting was inadequately supervised). ʹʹ
Lopez v. Metro Gov’t, 646 F. Supp. 2d 891, 917-918 (M.D. Tenn. 2009).
4 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 4 of 64 PageID #: 2063

 COMPLAINT ........................................................................................................................................................ 1
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 1
Tolling Agreement with the University of Tennessee .............................................................................. 4
Jurisdiction ................................................................................................................................................... 6
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 7
Notice of Ongoing Issues to the University’s Administration and Athletic Department ..................... 7
Plaintiff Jane Doe I.................................................................................................................................... 13
April 2013: Another Allegation of Sexual Assault by Football Players at Vol Hall ........................... 18
February 2014: UT Football Player Arrests ............................................................................................ 20
Plaintiff Jane Doe II .................................................................................................................................. 21
September 22, 2015: UT Football Player Allegedly Strikes Ex-girlfriend in the mouth .................... 23
Plaintiff Jane Doe III................................................................................................................................. 23
November 9, 2014: Enhancement of a Hostile Sexual Environment ................................................... 25
Plaintiff Jane Doe IV................................................................................................................................. 27
Plaintiff Jane Doe V .................................................................................................................................. 35
December 2014: Another UT Football Player Arrested, Discipline Handled “Internally” ............... 36
Plaintiff Jane Doe VI................................................................................................................................. 37
March 2015: UT Football Player Arrested ............................................................................................. 40
July 2015: UT Football Player Arrested .................................................................................................. 41
November 28, 2015: Hostile Environment Remains Uncured .............................................................. 41
COUNT I :Violation of Title IX – 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a) ................................................................................. 43
COUNT II: Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983: .................................................................................................... 46
Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief & Under Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Clause 2, of
the United States Constitution. ................................................................................................................ 46
Count III: Declaratory and Injunctive Relief for Violations of Title IX. ....................................................... 48
Plaintiff Doe I’s Claims Under Title IX .................................................................................................. 49
Plaintiff Doe II’s Claims Under Title IX ................................................................................................. 51
Plaintiff Doe III’s Claims Under Title IX ............................................................................................... 53
Plaintiff Doe IV’s Claims Under Title IX ............................................................................................... 55
Plaintiff Doe V’s Claims Under Title IX ................................................................................................. 57
Plaintiff Doe VI’s Claims Under Title IX ............................................................................................... 60
PRAYER FOR RELIEF ................................................................................................................................. 63

5 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 5 of 64 PageID #: 2064

 Plaintiff Jane Doe I is a resident of Knox County, Knoxville, Tennessee. Plaintiff Doe I was
a student at UT from August 2012-May of 2014.
11.

Plaintiff Jane Doe II is a resident of Hamilton County, Chattanooga, Tennessee.

Plaintiff Doe II was a student at UT from August 2014-January, 2015.
12.

Plaintiff Jane Doe III is a resident of Spring Hill, Tennessee. Plaintiff Doe III was a

student at UT from August 2014-December 2014.
13.

Plaintiff Jane Doe IV is a resident of Orlando, Florida. Plaintiff Doe IV was a student-

athlete at UT from August 2013-November 2014.
14.

Plaintiff Jane Doe V is a resident of Rhinebeck, New York. Plaintiff Doe V was a

student-athlete at UT from August 2013-January 2015.
15.

Plaintiff Jane Doe VI is a resident of Knox County, Knoxville, Tennessee. Plaintiff

Doe VI was a student at UT before leaving in April 2015.
16.

Defendant University of Tennessee at Knoxville is a land grant university established

and authorized under the laws of the State of Tennessee, which provides undergraduate and
graduate educational programs at various campuses throughout Tennessee. The University is an
instrumentality of the State of Tennessee, and is administered by the UT Board of Trustees. Further,
the University receives state and federal funding under Title IV and therefore is subject to Title IX
of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). The University can be served with legal
process c/o Herbert H. Slatery III Attorney General, State of Tennessee, Office of the Attorney
General and Reporter 425 5th Ave N #2, Nashville, TN 37243.
Jurisdiction
17.

This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1343 and the

Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Clause 2, of the United States Constitution.
18.

Venue is proper in the Nashville Division of the U.S. District Court in the Middle

District of Tennessee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(2) because, inter alia ̧ UT resides in the
Nashville Division in the Middle District, is subject to this Court’s personal jurisdiction, and Plaintiffs
cannot receive a fair and an impartial trial by jury in accordance with the Seventh Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution in any other judicial district in which venue would be proper. UT maintains
several campuses in Nashville (College of Social Work, Pharmacy and Health Sciences) and UT’s

6 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 6 of 64 PageID #: 2065

 Board of Trustees regularly hold its meetings in Nashville. http://trustees.tennessee.edu/ last visited
December 9, 2015). See also T.C.A. 4-5-223 (Davidson County, Tennessee is proper venue for TUAPA
declaratory judgment suits); Jain v. University of Tennessee, 670 F.Supp. 1388 (W.D. Tenn. 1987) (aff’d
843 F.2d 1391 (6th Cir. 1988)) (UT is an arm of the State of Tennessee).
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Notice of Ongoing Issues to the University’s Administration and Athletic Department
19.

Incidents involving athletes and misconduct, including specifically sexual violence,

have been part of a hostile sexual environment and culture of the University of Tennessee Athletic
Department for more than a decade. Plaintiffs aver that the University’s actions affirmatively and
deliberately created (and creates) a hostile discriminatory sexual environment for female students
and acted with deliberate indifference in its response to incidents of sexual assault in a pattern,
practice, practice, policy, and custom of grossly inadequate discipline and resolution in specific favor
of male, “major sports” athletes. Plaintiffs further aver that said favoritism included interfering with
and stopping the disciplinary process, concealing charges and investigations involving male athletes,
arranging for specialized defense counsel for male athletes at UT facing criminal and sexual assault
charges, encouraging parties with underage drinking to benefit recruiting, discouraged reporting by
creating a culture of known tolerance for and protection of misconduct, and misusing the Tennessee
Uniform Procedures Act by Chancellor (Cheek) selecting judges to hear cases involving athletes in
a delaying process not in compliance with Title IX.
20.

Under the “before” Title IX case, a prior known history of sexual misconduct by male

athletes (football and basketball players) is relevant to notice and the creation of a hostile
environment for sexual assaults and making female students vulnerable to assaults. Simpson, 500
F.3d 1170, 1179-1184. In 1995, UT football player Nilo Sylvan was arrested and charged with raping
a 17-year-old youth in his West Knoxville apartment where he lived with other UT football players.
See http://dailybeacon.webfactional.com/sports/1995/sep/19/athlete-arrested-for-rape/ (last visited
December 9, 2015). Sylvan was eventually dismissed from the team but remained under scholarship
for the remainder of the semester. See http://dailybeacon.webfactional.com/sports/1995/sep/20/nilosilvan-dismissed-from-team/ (last visited December 9, 2015). The arrest occurred less than one week
after his teammate, Leslie Ratliffe, was arrested and charged for assaulting his girlfriend. See
http://dailybeacon.webfactional.com/sports/1995/sep/19/athlete-arrested-for-rape/

(last

visited

7 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 7 of 64 PageID #: 2066

 December 9, 2015).
21.

In 1996, (then) Jamie Whited, the first female associate trainer in UT’s history,

reported an incident to the Sexual Assault Crisis Center in Knoxville alleging that UT football player
Peyton Manning had, in brief, “sat on her face” while she was assessing the extent of an injury. The
incident was settled in 1997 for an undisclosed amount conditioned on the victim leaving her job at
the University. See http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/colts/2003-11-04-manningsuit_x.htm (last visited December 9, 2015).
22.

In May of 2003, UT football player Antwan Stewart was arrested and charged with

raping a 16-year-old girl with a learning disorder in an on-campus dormitory. UT Athletic
Department personnel (including head coach Phil Fulmer) were made aware of the incident within
hours and met with the victim and her mother before the authorities were contacted. See
http://dailybeacon.webfactional.com/news/2003/aug/1/da-will-not-charge-player-with-rape/

(last

visited December 9, 2015). Charges were eventually dropped and Stewart played in all 13 games of
the 2003 season.
23.

In January 2005, UT football player Tony McDaniel was arrested and charged with

aggravated assault after hitting another student during a pickup basketball game on campus.
McDaniel was represented by Knoxville attorney Don Bosch, a former UT Athlete and Member of
the

Board

of

Athletics,

in

the

incident.

See

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/sec/2005-05-18-tennessee-indictment_x.htm
(last visited December 8, 2015).
24.

At that time, McDaniel was one of 13 UT football players who had been arrested or

cited for crimes ranging from aggravated assault to underage drinking in less than a year (since
February of 2004). Id.
25.

McDaniel was suspended from the team at the time (it was the offseason) and he

remained enrolled at UT for the duration of the Spring, 2005 semester. The victim was another UT
student whose face was broken in four places, requiring a metal plate. McDaniel was indicted on a
felony charge of aggravated assault in May of 2005 but the University’s discipline was limited to a
suspension for the summer school sessions and “indefinite probation,” and McDaniel was not
allowed

to

use

the

student

recreational

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2005-07-28-notes_x.htm

center.

See

(last

visited

8 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 8 of 64 PageID #: 2067

 December 8, 2015).
26.

In July 2005, McDaniel pleaded guilty but, in a deal obtained by his attorney, the

charges were reduced to misdemeanor assault and he was allowed to return to the team following
the first two games of the season. Id.
27.
Mike

In November of 2009, UT football players Nu’Keese Richardson, Janzen Jackson and

Edwards

were

arrested

and

charged

with

attempted

armed

robbery.

http://thegrio.com/2009/11/12/3-university-of-tennessee-football-players-arrested-for-robbery/ (last
visited December 8, 2015).
28.
Bosch,

Former UT Athlete and Member of the Board of Athletics, Knoxville attorney Don

represented

UT

football

player

Janzen

Jackson

in

the

incident.

See

http://espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4647094 (last visited December 8, 2015). Jackson was
reinstated to the team that season and continued to play for the Volunteers throughout the 2010
season before withdrawing from school during the Spring 2011 semester (he was reinstated in July
of that year) and ultimately being kicked off the team for issues relating to substance abuse in August
2011.

See

http://www.utsports.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/jackson_janzen00.html

(last

visited

December 8, 2015), see also (http://www.teamspeedkills.com/2011/8/24/2381418/janzen-jacksondismissed-tennessee-volunteers-football?_ga=1.110006467.735610754.1426605234

(last

visited

December 9, 2015). Jackson has since been arrested for murder and, as of 2014, was being held on a
$1-million-dollar bond. See http://theadvocate.com/sports/9579990-128/rabalais-for-janzen-jacksonfootball (last visited December 8, 2015).
29.

In July of 2010, UT football players Da’Rick Rogers and Darren Myles, Jr. were

arrested following a brawl at a bar where multiple (reports ranging from 6-12) football players were
partying

on

an

evening

that

left

an

off-duty

police

officer

seriously

injured.

http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/story/18526635/da-no-more-charges-in-bar-brawl-with-vols

See
(last

visited December 8, 2015). Myles was arrested on charges of assault, evading and resisting arrest and
Rogers

was

arrested

on

charges

of

disorderly

conduct

and

resisting

arrest.

http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/12778928/updated-calhouns-darick-rogers-arrested-in-knoxville-barfight (last visited December 8, 2015).
30.

Myles was dismissed from the football team; however, in a deal arranged by his

attorney, Don Bosch, Rogers agreed to perform 16 hours of community service and the charges were

9 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 9 of 64 PageID #: 2068

 dropped in September, without Rogers missing a single game of the 2010 season. See
http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/story/18526635/da-no-more-charges-in-bar-brawl-with-vols

(last

visited December 8, 2015).
31.
domestic

In February of 2011, UT football player Brent Brewer was arrested and charged with
assault.

See

http://www.rockytoptalk.com/2011/2/14/1992611/tennessee-safety-brent-

brewer-suspended-indefinitely-after-domestic?_ga=1.104791110.735610754.1426605234 (last visited
December 7, 2015).
32.

Brewer was represented by attorney Don Bosch in the incident and although initially

given an “indefinite suspension” from the football team, Brewer was reinstated to the team five
weeks later after reaching a plea agreement that reduced the charges to “offensive touching.” See
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2011-03-21-2474544407_x.htm (last visited
December

8,

2015),

http://www.sbnation.com/2011/3/21/2063625/brent-brewer-reinstated-at-

tennessee (last visited December 8, 2015).
33.

In 2011 and 2012, multiple separate allegations were made to the University relating

to sexual assaults by UT athletes. (Then) University of Tennessee Vice-Chancellor, Tim Rogers
(“Rogers”), made repeated efforts to bring concerns over serious ongoing problems involving sexual
assaults by football and basketball players and with the University’s response as it relates to sexual
assault cases to the attention of school administrators.
34.

In June of 2011, UT Athletic Director, Mike Hamilton, resigned amidst significant

criticism by Tennessee fans for setbacks on and off the field in three major sports (men’s basketball,
baseball and football). See http://espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=6634194 (last visited December
10, 2015).
35.

Hamilton was succeeded by Dave Hart 4 , the athletic director for Florida State

University. During his tenure at FSU, the University (and, specifically, the athletic department) came
under serious scrutiny after attempting to cover up an alleged rape of a female FSU student athlete
by a football player in 2003. The incident resulted in the commission of multiple reports to study the
4

During a January, 2013 interview, Hart commented on his plan to cure the ongoing financial woes of
Tennessee’s athletic department left in the wake of repeated unsuccessful seasons in major sports, stating:
“We’ve got to get football healthy,” “That’s our economic engine. When that program is successful, everybody
wins.” See http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/01/28/Colleges/Tennessee.aspx (last visited
December 10, 2015).
10 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 10 of 64 PageID #: 2069

 athletic department’s operations, one by the Inspector General. The Inspector General report found
that Hart’s department maintained a policy that “"all athletic department personnel should go to
their supervisor before contacting officers in the university and state administration.” "The 'tone at
the top' typically indicates the culture of most business units or organizations," the inspector general
report went on to state. "Within the Athletics Department, we believe the culture of isolation has
been established by the tone of the Athletics Director (Dave Hart), who is ultimately responsible for
all facets of the Department's operations.” The report also found that the athletics department did
not seek counsel from FSU police or other university departments on potential criminal matters.
And in the MGT report, Hart was criticized for "not holding head coaches accountable for the
enforcement of rules for players, including classroom attendance and student conduct.”
http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/2015/02/16/dave-hart-helm-florida-state-athleticsmishandled-rape-claim/23458011/ (last visited December 10, 2015). In a later interview, former FSU
general counsel, Betty Steffens, who headed the task force implemented to review the athletic
department’s dealings, said the way Hart's athletics department handled the sexual assault claim
made by a student-athlete "was totally not the right way to do business." Id.
36.

Upon information and belief, after Hart’s hiring during the 2011 football season, the

University received a report of an alleged sexual assault against UT football player Da’Rick Rogers.
The University never disclosed the allegation.
37.

The athletic department exercised improper and undue influence on the disciplinary

process and Director of Student Judicial Affairs, Jenny Wright. The athletic department criticized
Ms. Wright’s investigations and their outcomes in incidents involving athletes that included in a
verbal berating by Athletic Director and Vice Chancellor Dave Hart.
38.

No action was taken against Da’Rick Rogers by the University or football team as a

result of the alleged rape and he continued to play in every game of 2011, earning all-conference
accolades before eventually being kicked off the team in 2012.
39.

In 2012, accusations were made against Hart and the University by athletics

department staffers and associate athletic director Debby Jennings for discrimination and two
separate lawsuits were filed alleging, in-part, that Hart and the athletic department’s actions in
removing female staff and administrators and replacing them with male counterparts were intended
to facilitate the running of the department as a “good ol’ boys club,” consistent with the specific

11 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 11 of 64 PageID #: 2070

 findings and criticisms of the Inspector General reports from FSU. See Deborah Jennings v. The
University of Tennessee and Dave Hart, Case No. 3:12-cv-00507, USDC EDTN, Second Amended
Complaint

Doc.

35

at

24,

¶

105.

See

also,

http://www.tennessean.com/story/opinion/editorials/2015/02/16/university-tennessee-operateimpunity/23521043/ (last visited December 10, 2015).
40.

In May 2013, (then) University of Tennessee Vice-Chancellor, Tim Rogers again

voiced his concerns relating to serious ongoing problems involving sexual assaults by football and
basketball players and with the University’s response as it relates to sexual assault cases. Rogers met
with Chancellor Cheek, provided direct notice to Cheek of the hostile sexual environment, rape
culture and increased risk of placing athletes with freshman woman at Vol Hall. Rogers provided
written memos to Cheek detailing these concerns. The University has stated to Plaintiffs’ counsel
that these memos are no longer available.
41.

These issues raised by Rogers were memorialized in a document specifically

addressing a pattern of undue influence and involvement by the Athletic Department and
Administration.
42.

Mr. Rogers again attempted to discuss these concerns in May 2013, directly to Cheek

before he communicated them directly to University of Tennessee President Joe DiPietro
(“President DiPietro”).
43.

Specifically, in a written memorandum, Rogers raised the following “examples” of

interference by the Athletic Department:

12 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 12 of 64 PageID #: 2071

 44.

Rogers presented the memorandum to Chancellor Cheek, who refused to read Mr.

Rogers’ written memorandum.
45.

Rogers subsequently met with President DiPietro, but no substantive action was taken

to address the problems raised by Rogers. Rogers resigned from UT on March 6, 2013 due to “the
intolerable situation” created by the UT administration and athletic department of interfering with
the disciplinary process for athletes and being deliberately indifferent to the risks of sexual assaults
and rapes by football players and basketball players, particularly at Vol Hall. This was specific notice
of the risk of sexual assault and the existence of a University created atmosphere of a hostile sexual
assault environment created and condoned by the UT administration and athletic department.
46.

Jenny Wright, then Director of Student Judicial Affairs, voiced concerns relating to a

pattern and practice of active interference by the Athletic Dept. that included “coaching witnesses
to get their stories straight.”
47.

Upon information and belief, Jenny Wright was specifically instructed by Chancellor

Cheek to “stop” and not pursue an investigation or disciplinary action in an incident relating to
allegations of sexual assault against UT football player Marlin Lane in April, 2013 (discussed infra).
48.

Plaintiffs herein each allege injuries occurring after the University was on notice of a

hostile sexual environment created by University policies as proven by issues raised by Ms. Wright
and Mr. Rogers (and later memorialized in Mr. Rogers’ Memorandum).

Plaintiff Jane Doe I
49.

In February, 2013, Plaintiff Jane Doe I met Yemi Makanjuola, a 6’ 9” (then) UTK

student and basketball player from Nigeria. Makanjuola initially asked Plaintiff Doe I out for
Valentine’s day (February 14, 2013) but when she informed him she had dinner plans, Makanjuola
proposed instead that they order lunch and eat at his on campus apartment in Vol Hall.
50.

While at his apartment on February 14, 2013, Makanjuola made sexual advances

towards Plaintiff Doe I that were expressly and clearly rejected. Plaintiff Doe I left the apartment
and later that evening exchanged text messages with Makanjuola.

13 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 13 of 64 PageID #: 2072

 51.

During the exchange, Plaintiff Doe I again explained that she was only interested in

friendship and did not want to have a physical relationship with someone she had just met.
Makanjuola replied, indicating that he both understood and respected her position and additionally
invited Plaintiff Doe I to come over the next day.
52.

Based on Makanjuola’s expressed understanding of her intentions, Plaintiff Doe I

accepted the invitation and arrived at Vol Hall the following day on February 15, 2013, around noon.
Initially, Makanjuola’s conduct was acceptable and the two made small talk while watching TV.
53.

Both Makanjuola and Plaintiff Doe I were sitting on his bed. Approximately an hour

and a half later, Makanjuola lay down on his bed and pulled his pants down. He forcefully grabbed
Plaintiff Doe I’s head, pushing it towards his penis. Plaintiff Doe I resisted and verbally said “no”
repeatedly. Makanjuola ignored Plaintiff Doe I’s objections and got on top of her, forcefully
removing her clothes.
54.

Using her hands, Plaintiff Doe I attempted to block Makanjuola from vaginally

penetrating her with his penis until Makanjuola grabbed both of her hands and held them above her
head. Plaintiff yelled for him to stop repeatedly and continued struggling but was unable to stop the
6’9” athlete, who stared at Plaintiff throughout the ordeal without speaking other than repeatedly
“shhh-ing” her.
55.

When Plaintiff attempted to leave and began putting on her clothes Makanjuola told

Plaintiff to let him dress her. Makanjuola attempted to take a photograph of Plaintiff Doe I while
she was naked but Plaintiff refused. After her clothes were on, Makanjuola again attempted to take
a picture of the two of them together but Plaintiff Doe I refused.
56.

Plaintiff Doe I was scared to leave and sat in the room until Makanjuola informed her

that it was time to leave because he had pre-game. Makanjuola followed Plaintiff out of the dorm
and instructed her to get into a vehicle he flagged down that was being driven by another basketball
player, Jarnell Stokes. Makanjuola instructed Stokes to stop the car and let Plaintiff out at the bottom
of Peyton Manning Pass. As she exited the vehicle Makanjuola instructed her to text him when she
got back to the dorm.
57.

Plaintiff Doe I was in shock at the events and did not know what to do. Makanjuola

later contacted her but when she refused to meet him at his apartment he became angry and asked
why she was being difficult.
14 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 14 of 64 PageID #: 2073

 58.

The following morning on February 16, 2013, Plaintiff went to the hospital where she

underwent a sexual assault exam. The assault was reported by the nurses to the police, who
interviewed Plaintiff while at the hospital. That same afternoon, on February 16, 2013, Makanjuola
played in Tennessee’s win at home over the University of Kentucky.
59.

A police report detailing the incident was filed with UT’s police department

(“UTPD”).
60.

Upon information and belief action was taken by the University through its media

relations department to limit public access to UTPD’s records of the investigation. See Kuykendall,
Blair, Open access laws ignored by UT, The Daily Beacon at p 4, April 23, 2013.
61.

On February 17, 2013, a No-Contact Directive was sent to Plaintiff and Makanjuola

by UT via email.
62.

UT sent notification to faculty over Plaintiff’s Spring, 2013 classes that Plaintiff had

suffered a “traumatic personal experience,” would “likely miss some of her classes” and that “the
Dean of Students Office is working with her, and would appreciate any support you can provide.”
63.

Plaintiff Doe I subsequently sought a protective order against Makanjuola where she

was represented by a court appointed attorney. Although Makanjuola obtained representation by
Don Bosch, a well known Knoxville attorney, a former UT athlete and member of the UT Board of
Athletics, Makanjuola did not appear for the initial hearing and arrived several hours late for the
rescheduled hearing because of conflicts with his UT basketball schedule.
64.

UT’s investigation concluded that Makanjuola had violated the University’s General

Standard of Conduct 5 and 6 and provided notification of same in early March, 2013.
65.

The process was then delayed by an openly disingenuous request by Makanjuola’s

attorney for an administrative hearing to contest the charges.
66.

Upon information and belief, this practice of requesting a disciplinary hearing was

routinely utilized by UT athletes who had been accused of sexual assault for the sole purpose of
delaying implementation of disciplinary action without any intent of actually participating in the
hearing.
67.

Upon information and belief, the purpose of requesting a disciplinary hearing was to

allow Makanjuola to continue to play basketball throughout the remainder of the season and to allow

15 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 15 of 64 PageID #: 2074

 UT to effectuate his transfer to another school, the University of North Carolina at Wilmington,
where UT’s Head of Basketball Operations, Houston Fancher, had accepted a coaching job
(announced April 23, 2013).
68.

On March 7, 2013, Plaintiff received a copy of correspondence from UT Chancellor,

Jimmy Cheek, sent to Makanjuola’s attorney, Don Bosch, notifying Makanjuola that, per his request
for a hearing the matter had been assigned to an administrative law judge.
69.

On March 17, 2013 (“Selection Sunday”), the NCAA Selection Committee announced

the participants and tournament brackets for the 2013 NCAA Men’s Division I Basketball
Tournament. UT did not make the tournament.
70.

On March 18, 2013, counsel for UT wrote the administrative law judge to request a

hearing date, indicating that the parties would need until May 2013, to complete depositions.
71.

The administrative law judge appointed to preside over the hearing sent a request to

counsel for dates to schedule the hearing on March 18, 2013, and requested a response from counsel
for UT and Makanjuola by March 21, 2013.
72.

Makanjuola’s attorneys did not initially respond to the administrative law judge’s

request and on April 1, 2013, the hearing date was set for May 22, 2013. Only after the May 22
hearing date was selected did Makanjuola’s attorney contact the judge to instead request a later
hearing date of May 30, 2013.
73.

Upon information and belief, Makanjuola requested the later hearing date in order

to ensure that any disciplinary action would be imposed after he was able to complete academic
courses at UT so that his eligibility for transfer would not be adversely affected.
74.

Upon information and belief, UT routinely delayed matters relating to disciplinary

proceedings and announcements until time periods when school was not in regular session so as to
mitigate the negative impact of related media.
75.

No depositions were taken in the case as initially represented when scheduling the

disciplinary hearing.
76.

On April 20, 2013, UT announced that Makanjuola had been granted a release in a

statement from Tom Satkowiak, Associate Director of Media Relations for the University of
Tennessee Athletics. There was no mention of the pending disciplinary charges, protective order or

16 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 16 of 64 PageID #: 2075

 the allegations by Plaintiff. In announcing the release, the (then) UT head basketball coach Cuonzo
Martin stated “Yemi is leaving the team on good terms. He’s respected by his teammates and
coaches, we all appreciate the work he’s put in during his time here and I’m confident that he’ll be
successful.”

See

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/sports/college/story/2013/apr/21/vols-

makanjuola-transferring-out-ndiaye-signs/105926/ (last visited December 3, 2015).
77.

On April 23, 2013, the University of North Carolina at Wilmington (“UNCW”)

announced the hiring of Houston Fancher (UT’s Head of Basketball Operations) as its newest
assistant basketball coach.
78.

Makanjuola subsequently announced his intent to transfer to UNCW to play

basketball.
79.

Makanjuola continued to take classes at UT through the spring semester.

80.

On May 1, 2013, the administrative law judge contacted counsel for UT and

Makanjuola to confirm the May 30, 2013, hearing date. That same day, counsel for UT replied,
confirming the May 30, 2013, hearing date but noting that Makanjuola did not plan on participating.
81.

On May 30, 2013, counsel for UT received an email from counsel for Makanjuola

confirming that Makanjuola would not be participating in the hearing and that no one would be
appearing on his behalf.
82.

Neither Makanjuola nor his attorneys appeared for the hearing and, at the onset,

counsel for UT indicated to the administrative law judge that a motion for default would be
forthcoming.
83.

Plaintiff appeared for the hearing and testified via Skype despite the fact that

Makanjuola did not appear and despite the fact that counsel for UT had already moved orally for
default and announced a forthcoming motion for default judgment. Plaintiff was subjected to direct
examination by counsel for UT, forcing her to relive the incident in detail. Plaintiff was further
subjected to subsequent examination by the administrative law judge, that included questions
inappropriately classifying Mr. Makanjuola’s actions as “a little friendlier than you would have him
be?” and further inquiry of whether Plaintiff’s response to the encounters with Makanjuola (in
reporting the incident) were related to his statements that he “didn’t like you [Plaintiff]” and whether
Plaintiff was “being vindictive in any way.” May 30, 2013, Transcript of Proceedings.

17 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 17 of 64 PageID #: 2076

 84.

Although the administrative law judge indicated at the onset of the hearing that

retroactive disciplinary action dating back to the assault was an available remedy, the only
disciplinary action sought by UT was an indefinite suspension.
85.

The administrative law judge issued her decision on July 24, 2013, finding that

Makanjuola had violated the General Standards of Conduct set forth in the initial charges and, as a
“penalty,” issued an “indefinite suspension,” effective July 24, 2013.
86.

Following the “indefinite suspension,” Plaintiff continued her enrollment at UTK in

the nursing program, an academic track to which she had already committed three years of work.
87.

In December of 2013, less than five months after the date the decision was issued,

Plaintiff was contacted via text message by Makanjuola, resulting in recurrence of significant PTSD
symptoms directly attributable to the February assaults.
88.

The contact directly impacted Plaintiff’s academic performance and class attendance;

however, the measures initially taken to notify her teachers and provide academic assistance and
support (required under Title IX), were not continued and as a result Plaintiff’s grades suffered.
89.

Plaintiff was not notified by UT until May of 2014, when it was too late to transfer to

another program, that her GPA (3.12) was .08 points below the nursing program requirement (3.2)
and therefore insufficient to remain in the UT nursing program. Upon being informed that her GPA
did not meet the requirements, Plaintiff even provided medical evidence (in the form of a letter from
her therapist at UT) establishing that the drop in academic performance was largely attributable to
the assault, the subsequent contact by her assailant and resulting recurrence of PTSD.
90.

Despite the medical evidence (and UT’s duties under Title IX), on May 21, 2014, Jane

Doe I was informed that the school would offer no leniency and she was precluded from continuing
in the nursing program for failing to meet the 3.2 GPA requirement.
April 2013: Another Allegation of Sexual Assault by Football Players at Vol Hall
91.

In April 2013, yet another report was made alleging sexual assault at Vol Hall, this

time involving UT football players, Geraldo Orta and Marlin Lane (who the victim alleged raped
her). (Then) ineligible UT football player Izauea Lanier5 (Lanier played for UT during the 2011
5

Lanier, a 2008 high school graduate, originally committed to Auburn but was ruled ineligible and subsequently
transferred to East Mississippi Community College for two seasons. He played for the University of Tennessee

18 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 18 of 64 PageID #: 2077

 football season before being ruled ineligible by the NCAA for the 2012 season) was also involved in
the incident.
92.

The assault occurred on April 7, 2013, in the suite shared by these and other football

players, including roommate A.J. Johnson.
93.

During the investigation, UT football players were interviewed but only after they had

already been made aware of the allegations by UT and had conversations with their teammates.
94.

Upon information and belief, these conversations and prior actions by UT allowed the

players to “get their stories straight.”
95.

The victim’s account of the incident described nearly identical circumstances to those

found by UT in its investigation of the assault on Plaintiff Jane Doe IV (see infra), including but not
limited to a sexual encounter with one player (Orta) that was initially consensual before another
player (Lane) joined in without consent; the provision of alcohol by UT football players to minors;
and, a claim by one of the accused that communications with the victim included a “pinky promise.”
See April 2013 UTPD Police Report.
96.

No disciplinary action was ever taken against the football players involved in the

incident by the University.
97.

No disciplinary action was taken at all against the football players except a nominal

“suspension” on April 13, 2013, when UT football player Marlin Lane was suspended from the
football team for what was stated by Head Coach Butch Jones as “disciplinary reasons.” See
http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/2014/10/31/ut-never-disclosed-rape-allegationsathletes/18267043/ (last visited December 4, 2015).
98.

The purely facial “suspension” only consisted of Lane missing four practices and a

scrimmage before he was fully reinstated to the team less than two months later at which time Head
Coach Butch Jones described him as a “success story,” and Lane has since been promoted to a
member of the Vols’ 13-man player staff of team leaders. Id.
99.

The April, 2013 incident marked the third such allegation of sexual assault (including

during the 2011 football season but was ruled ineligible by the NCAA for the entire 2012 season. He then
transferred
(again)
to
West
Alabama,
where
he
played
in
2014.
See
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20140912/NEWS/140919838?p=1&tc=pg (last visited December 7,
2015).
19 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 19 of 64 PageID #: 2078

 the assault against Plaintiff Doe I) in the Vol Hall student apartments in a two-month period;
however, the University’s disclosure of these incidents was limited to Head Coach Jones’s
announcement of Lane’s suspension for “disciplinary reasons” and (then) Head Basketball Coach
Cuonzo Martin’s statements relating to Makanjuola’s release, supra —without any reference to the
allegations of sexual assault.
February 2014: UT Football Player Arrests
100. On February 2014, later in the week of “National Signing Day” police responded to a
party at an apartment in Knoxville where former UT football player Dontavis Sapp and (then)
current UT football players AJ Johnson, Curt Maggitt, Jalen Reeves-Maybin and Jakob Johnson
lived. See http://knoxblogs.com/evanseleven/2014/02/10/butch-jones-faces-1st-field-incident-tenure9-vols-arrested-cited-sunday/ (last visited 12/1/15).
101. No fewer than 9 UT football players were arrested or cited in connection to the
incident and fourteen partygoers (including at least four UT football players, Dontavius Blair,
Dimarya Mixon, Justin Coleman and Malik Brown) were cited for underage drinking. See
http://knoxblogs.com/evanseleven/2014/02/10/butch-jones-faces-1st-field-incident-tenure-9-volsarrested-cited-sunday/ (last visited 12/1/15). Upon information and belief, drugs were in use at the
party.
102. (Then) current football players Curtis Maggitt, Jalen Reeves-Maybin and Jakob
Johnson were cited for providing alcohol to underage persons. Id.
103. Two former UT football players were arrested and another former UT football
player was cited during the incident. Id.
104. UT football player Danny O’Brien was arrested and charged with criminal
impersonation with a false identification, underage consumption and resisting arrest.6 Id.
105. UT football player AJ Johnson was arrested and charged with providing alcohol to a
minor and for resisting arrest. Id.

6

Since the events complained of herein, Danny O’Brien has again been the subject of “internal” team discipline
(but not University discipline) after reportedly failing a drug test in 2015. He was suspended from playing for
one game and subsequently reinstated without further disciplinary action by the University. See
http://allfortennessee.com/2015/09/10/why-danny-obrien-was-suspended-by-vols/ (last visited December 2,
2015).
20 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 20 of 64 PageID #: 2079

 106. In addition, a member of the UT football coaching staff was present during the police
response and attempted to dissuade police from arresting football players and recruits, efforts that
were captured on police video of the incident.
107. Police video also shows two other individuals identified on the scene as an assistant
strength

coach

and

a

defensive

line

coach

who

were

not

detained.

See

https://www.questia.com/newspaper/1P2-36371392/camera-footage-reveals-ut-football-staffmember-was (last visited December 3, 2015).
108. The UT football coach was initially placed in handcuffs and in the back of a squad car.
Id.
109. Despite the charges, media coverage and the fact that a coach witnessed the incident,
all charges were dropped in lieu of community service and no school discipline was imposed as Head
Football Coach Butch Jones publicly announced his decision that “I’ll handle all punishment inside.”
See

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/sports/college/story/2014/feb/27/ut-players-punishments-

to-be-team-issue/132907/ (last visited December 3, 2015).
110. Upon information and belief, the above-described “party” included (then) non-UT
football players or UT student attendees considered “recruits.”
111. Upon information and belief, the party was organized in relation to “National Signing
Day” that occurred the previous week.
112. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant UT football staff was aware of the
above described “party” and, specifically, that recruits would be in attendance.

Plaintiff Jane Doe II
113. Plaintiff Jane Doe II, a freshman UT student, suffered a forcible rape at Vol Hall,
with attendant emotional suffering, and further suffered when she was subjected to a clearly
unreasonable investigatory response by the University.
114. The assault occurred on September 6, 2014, in Vol Hall by Mr. John Doe I, a UTK
football player.
115. The assault occurred after Plaintiff attended a party at a fraternity, where alcohol was

21 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 21 of 64 PageID #: 2080

 provided.
116. Initially, the investigation was headed by (then) Director of Student Conduct and
Community Standards, Tim Burkhalter (“Mr. Burkhalter”).
117. During the investigation, Plaintiff informed UTK investigators that, prior to the
assault, she had never had sexual intercourse and that, at the time it occurred, she was on her period.
Plaintiff also informed UTK investigators that when she woke up the morning after the assault, she
found a strap had been ripped off her top and the button ripped off her shorts and photographs were
taken of the torn clothes.
118. On October 1, 2014, at 12:34 PM (EST), based on Mr. Burkhalter’s findings, the
University provided (via email) notice of intent to move forward with disciplinary action against Mr.
Doe I for violations of General Standards of Conduct and that a hearing was scheduled for October
6, 2014. Notice of Charges and Hearing.
119. On October 1, 2014, at approximately 4:30 PM (EST), John Doe filed two baseless
complaints against Plaintiff in retaliation to her reporting of the sexual assault. The first complaint
Mr. Doe I filed alleged theft of a sweater against the victim of a sexual assault. The second was for
filing a false complaint.
120. The completely baseless and retaliatory reports filed by Mr. Doe I were premised inpart on Plaintiff’s actions in leaving the dorm the following morning wearing a sweatshirt, actions
she were forced to take because her clothes had been torn off during the sexual assault.
121. On October 3, 2014, Mr. Doe I rescinded an earlier waiver and requested an
administrative hearing under the Tennessee Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, pushing back
the previously noticed hearing date of October 6, 2014.
122. Without explanation, the University then reassigned the case to the Office of Equity
and Diversity (ultimately to the Interim Director, Jenny Richter) and, in an email from Vice
Chancellor Vince Carelli (Notice of Withdrawal of Charges) notified Plaintiff Doe II that the
pending disciplinary charges against Mr. Doe I were rescinded, initiating a “fresh” investigation. As
with other UT investigations, Plaintiff’s account was completely discounted and, based on the
“collective” (and virtually identical) accounts of Mr. Doe I’s teammates and a time-lapsed video from
an unspecified time after the assault (that arguably shows Ms. Doe II tripping while trying to walk

22 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 22 of 64 PageID #: 2081

 barefoot in a dorm stairwell), UT determined that, by a preponderance of the evidence, she could
not have been incapacitated and, further, that the sexual encounter was consensual. Doe II
Investigative Report.
123. This illusory basis flatly contradicted the statements made to UT on multiple occasions
by a witness who knew both Ms. Doe II and Mr. Doe I (indeed, the witness was a member of the
same fraternity and played baseball on the same team as Mr. Doe I prior to enrolling at UT). Further,
it is consistent with the ongoing theme of victim blaming, which ultimately led to public humiliation
and Plaintiff’s departure from school in January 2015.
124. Even more contradictory are the University’s findings relating to the retaliatory
reports by Mr. Doe I (dated November 14, 2014), that denied the imposition of discipline against
Plaintiff for allegedly filing a false report finding that they were brought in good faith. Mr. Doe I
Investigative Reports.
September 22, 2015: UT Football Player Allegedly Strikes Ex-girlfriend in the mouth
125. Early Sunday morning on September 22, 2014, police responded to an incident
involving UT football player, Treyvon Paulk, after he reportedly punched his ex-girlfriend in the
mouth.

See

http://www.knoxnews.com/govolsxtra/football/tennessee-freshman-tailback-treyvon-

paulk-dismissed-from-team ( last accessed November 18, 2015).
126. No discipline was issued by the University excepting yet another facial suspension
from the football team without explanation or reference to the assault.
127. The practical effect of the “suspension” as the sole form of discipline was virtually nil
given that, at the time, Paulk was taking a medical red-shirt for the season while rehabbing from an
injury the previous year and, in any event, he continued to participate in team activities and disclosed
as much to other students, including Plaintiff Jane Doe III.

Plaintiff Jane Doe III
128. Plaintiff Jane Doe III was sexually assaulted on October 12, 2014 by UT student Mr.
John Doe II and two students attending Tennessee State University.
129. The details of the assault are contained in the University’s Investigative Report (Doe

23 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 23 of 64 PageID #: 2082

 III Investigative Report) and include Ms. Doe III’s incapacitation due to alcohol and resulting
inability to consent.
130. Although the assault took place off campus, the events leading to the assault began on
campus in Vol Hall (the dorm that Vice-Chancellor Rogers warned UT Chancellor Cheek presented
a clear and present danger of sexual assaults) where she, a minor, was provided alcohol by several
members of the UTK football team.
131. The football players that provided the alcohol included Traevon Paulk, who, despite
UT’s press release, was still attending practice and participating in team events following an
allegation of battery by Mr. Paulk’s former girlfriend just weeks before.
132. The University was made aware of Plaintiff’s assault shortly after it occurred and a nocontact order was issued October 24, 2014.
133. Although a no-contact order was issued, Plaintiff Doe III observed her assailant (who
lives off campus where the assault occurred) at her dorm on multiple occasions.
134. Plaintiff Doe III subsequently withdrew from UT and although the grades for those
classes are not reflected negatively on her transcript, the withdrawal mid-semester has impacted her
eligibility for scholarships and financial aid.
135. In addition, Plaintiff Doe III has been unable to fully begin her recovery, as UT’s
investigation has not yet concluded as of the date of this Complaint.
136. As in other cases, Mr. Doe II requested an administrative hearing although counsel
for UT has expressed that it is unlikely Mr. Doe II will actually participate in the hearing.
137. The timeframe for the investigation under Title IX, following the promptness
mandate established in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (526 U.S. 629, 1999), would have
expired on or around December 11, 2014, which potentially would have allowed Plaintiff Doe III to
return to school the following semester in January, 2015; however, even though the family had
expressed dissatisfaction with UTK’s response (particularly with the timeframe), as of December,
2015, a date has not even been set for the hearing.
138. Her alleged assailant seemingly continues to be enrolled at UT and it is unclear when
and what notification, required by Title IX, was given to the school of the investigative findings as
they relate to the other two alleged assailants.

24 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 24 of 64 PageID #: 2083

 139. Further, as to Mr. Doe II, the University has only sought potential retroactive
application of disciplinary measures to a seemingly arbitrary date in February 2015, essentially
allowing the alleged sexual assailant to remain in school and earn college credit while the victim has
endured precisely the opposite, a withdrawal from school negatively impacting her eligibility for
financial aid and scholarship.
140. The University’s explanation for the delay is Mr. Doe II’s choice for a hearing even
though counsel for the University has also communicated that it is unlikely he will even participate.
November 9, 2014: Enhancement of a Hostile Sexual Environment
141. On November 9, 2014, the University’s Athletic Department made arrangements to
surprise the football team with a visit from popular rap artist, Lil’ Jon.
142. Prior to this visit and at the specific insistence of the football coaching staff, UT had
adopted the rapper’s song “Turn Down for What”7 as its official 3rd down football anthem, playing
the song in Neyland stadium during games each third down when the opposing team was on offense
and using a play on the lyrics (as “Third Down for What”) for printing on official team merchandise.
143. For more than a decade, the rapper Lil’ Jon has been associated with sexual violence
and rape culture.8
144. Most recently, his song “Literally I Can’t,” (released just weeks before his visit with
the UT football team and the hit single central to his tour at that time) came under fire and was
debated as possibly the most sexist song promoting sexual assault, battery and rape—ever. The theme
of

the

song

is

“don’t

take

“no”

for

an

answer

from

women.”

See

http://www.knoxnews.com/govolsxtra/columnists/john-adams-bad-rap-lil-jon-has-worn-out-hiswelcome_53366907 ( last visited December 7, 2015). The verses include the phrase “Girl I know that
you can. I don’t wanna hear no.” In the music video, conservatively dressed sorority sisters arrive at
a raucous house party and rebuff the advances of the drunken male party attenders with the refrain
“Literally, I can’t.” After responding “Literally, I can’t” to each of the offers, the girls are rushed and
7

The official music video for Lil’ Jon’s “Turn Down for What” features frantic and continuous “humping” of
inanimate objects and unwilling bystanders. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMUDVMiITOU (last visited
December 7, 2015).
8
At the 2005 MTV Spring Break concert, one of the most publicized instances of his career, Lil’ Jon,
performing as Lil Jon & the East Side Boyz infamously demanded that the young women in his concert
audience expose their breasts or he would not continue to perform. See
http://www.crowdsafe.com/new.asp?ID=1486 (last visited December 7, 2015).
25 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 25 of 64 PageID #: 2084

 tackled by boozed-up jocks, while Lil’ Jon aggressively shouts the song’s chorus for the women to
“Shut the f**k up.” See http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/music/music-videos/women-shouldshut-the-fk-up-is-this-the-most-offensive-song-of-2014/newsstory/375a201bf2afa250e96c601adadd355c ( last visited December 12, 2015).
145. The rapper’s visit was publicly celebrated by the University’s Athletic Department,
who produced and published a video showing the football team and specifically football players A.J.
Johnson’s and Curt Maggitt’s (Johnson and Maggit standing in orange) reactions to the rapper’s
presence. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PUtD_a8QrI (last visited December 7, 2015).

146. Further, the rapper’s presence at practice was praised by UT football coaches in
social media repeatedly over the following days and weeks without any disclaimer to the sexual

26 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 26 of 64 PageID #: 2085

 violence central to the rapper’s public persona and music.

Plaintiff Jane Doe IV
147. Plaintiff Jane Doe IV was a sophomore student-athlete (member of a varsity athletic
team) at the University of Tennessee when she was forcibly raped by University of Tennessee football
players A.J. Johnson and Mike Williams on November 16, 2014.
148. The rape occurred at a condominium/apartment owned by a UT Athletic booster, Dr.
William Powell. Plaintiffs allege on information and belief that the UT Athletic Department both
controlled these premises and arranged for this housing that was paid for with football scholarship
funds.
149. The details of Plaintiff Doe IV’s assault as found by the University’s investigation are
contained in the University’s Investigative Report.
150. The assault occurred on or around November 15-16, 2014, following Tennessee’s win
in the football game against the University of Kentucky during a party (where marijuana and alcohol
were in use) at an apartment where University of Tennessee football players including A.J. Johnson,
Curt Maggitt and Geraldo Orta lived.
151. Orta and Lane had been previously criminally investigated for rape in their suite
27 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 27 of 64 PageID #: 2086

 shared by A.J. Johnson. Chancellor Cheek had directed Jenny Wright to “stop” disciplinary action
in

connection

with

this

prior

incident.

http://www.tennessean.com/story/sports/college/vols/2015/03/06/ut-athletics-accused-influencingstudent-discipline/24505399/ (last visited December 9, 2015).
152. Upon information and belief, the party was thrown and hosted by football players
because of the presence of football recruits who were visiting and had attended the football game.
153. Upon information and belief, the party was attended by UT football players, UT
students and football recruits and, at times, included in excess of 70 attendees.
154. Alcohol was purchased by UT football players including Mike Williams and Curt
Maggitt for the specific purpose of providing said alcohol to recruits and underage minor women.
155. The University was made aware of the incident on November 16, 2014.
156. Knoxville police were contacted and attempted to interview Williams and Johnson.
Initially Johnson indicated he would meet for an interview; however, neither player showed up for
the interview and, consistent with previous incidents, instead delayed giving statements until
specialized defense counsel had been retained including Johnson’s current attorney, Tom Dillard.
157. The head coach of Plaintiff Jane Doe IV’s varsity team had already been notified of
the assault and contacted Plaintiff Doe IV by text in the early morning of November 16, 2014, before
coming to her dorm room.
158. Even though the athletic department was clearly aware of the situation, calls and texts
were made by A.J. Johnson and his roommate and teammate, Curt Maggitt, to Plaintiff Doe IV and
her teammates, including her roommate, Plaintiff Doe V, in an effort to convince Plaintiff Doe IV
not to pursue any investigation or disciplinary action.9
9

In an interview with the Tennessean, vice chancellor Margie Nichols indicated that school officials were well
aware of the situation as early as 9:00 AM the day of the assault:
“Knoxville Police Chief David Rausch contacted University of Tennessee Police Chief Troy
Lane on Sunday morning, hours after the women reported the alleged assaults. By 9:07 a.m.
Sunday, University Chancellor Jimmy Cheek and Athletics Director Dave Hart had been
alerted about the allegations, along with nearly a dozen of the university's top academic and
athletic officials.
The alert system prompted the University Division of Student Life to reach out to the alleged
victim and is offering her services and support, Nichols said.”

28 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 28 of 64 PageID #: 2087

 159. On November 17, Plaintiff Doe IV met with several University representatives
including Jon Gilbert (Executive Senior Associate Athletics Director), Mike Ward (Senior Associate
Athletics Director) and her varsity team’s head coach. Gilbert, Ward and the head coach began the
meeting by informing Plaintiff that the football team had just announced the immediate suspension
of the two football players who had assaulted her, A.J. Johnson and Mike Williams, from all team
activities.
160. When Plaintiff Doe IV asked whether the suspension was limited to football, she was
assured that both Johnson and Williams would not be allowed to “step foot on the athletic footprint
of the campus.”
161. During the meeting, Plaintiff Doe IV also voiced concerns of how the incident would
be handled by the university as she had only recently (after she had been assaulted) become aware
of the Marlin Lane incident from 2013, that also involved allegations of sexual assault against football
players and reports of subsequent harassment by their supporters against the victim.
162. While the aforementioned was being discussed, Plaintiff Doe IV received a message
from Plaintiff Doe V who was witnessing (at that moment) several football players “jumping” Drae
Bowles, a member of the football team that had actually taken Plaintiff Doe IV to the hospital the
night of her assault and who had supported her decision to report the incident to the authorities.
163. Plaintiff Doe IV informed Gilbert, Ward and the head coach at that time and even
provided the identities of the players, but was told only “we’ll look into it.”
164. Plaintiff Doe IV later understood that athletic coaches were present during that
altercation but has never been informed of any action was ever taken against the players in reference
to that incident.
165. Days later, Plaintiff Doe IV became aware of a second assault on Drae Bowles in the
team facility by the same football players.

http://www.wbir.com/story/sports/2014/11/20/police-continue-to-conduct-interviews-in-rapeinvestigation/70039904/ (last visited December 12, 2015).
Even though the Chancellor, Athletics Director and “nearly a dozen top academic and athletic
officials” had been alerted early that morning, phone records show repeated calls continuing well into
the afternoon from Johnson and his roommate/teammate Curt Maggitt.
29 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 29 of 64 PageID #: 2088

 166. Plaintiff Doe IV brought the second assault to the attention of school administrators
but again, has never received information of any action taken by UT against these players although
she has since been made aware that Drae Bowles transferred to another school.
167. The actions and intent of UT football players against Drae Bowles were disclosed by
Williams in his November 26, 2014, interview with the police, when he stated that his teammate,
Geraldo Orta, had told Williams that the football team had “a hit” out on Drae Bowles.
168. In his interviews with police, UT football player Geraldo Orta stated that he felt
Bowles had betrayed the team and that where he (Orta) came from, people got shot for doing what
Bowles did. These facts are set forth in the Knoxville Police Department Incident Report.
169. During the interview Orta also admitted having approached Drae Bowles in Smokey’s
Cafe (the athletic dining facility), getting “in his face” and saying “some threatening things.” Id.
170. Orta further acknowledged that UT football player Curt Maggitt had also, in a
separate incident, confronted Drae Bowles in the team locker room before the team was instructed
by Head Coach Butch Jones not to talk to him and before Bowles was “given time away from the
team.” Id.
171. The second assault on Bowles was admitted by Curt Maggit in his own interviews with
police as well as the fact that he had purchased alcohol for the party. Id.
172. No discipline was administered to either player.
173. In the days following the meeting, Plaintiff Doe IV became aware that Williams and
Johnson were and would continue to be allowed to remain on campus and, contrary to the “official
statements,” would be allowed access to the academic support centers (shared by women's and men's
athletics).
174. Plaintiff Doe IV made the decision to stay at home with family until exams out of the
fear of a possible encounter simply by following her own class and tutoring schedule.
175. Knowledge of how the University had handled allegations against football players in
recent situations during Plaintiff Doe IV’s time at UT caused her to leave campus. Plaintiff was aware
of the situation earlier that year (in February of 2014), when multiple football players including
Johnson were arrested at a party at Johnson’s apartment.
176. Plaintiff Doe IV became aware that all charges, including drug and alcohol and

30 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 30 of 64 PageID #: 2089

 charges for resisting arrest/assaulting an officer, had been dropped and that the players only received
community service without any team or University discipline.
177. Plaintiff Doe IV also became aware that a football coach was present at that party but,
as multiple football players (including Johnson) had later explained to Plaintiff and others, “Coach
took care of it so it’s no big deal.”
178. Despite the assurances offered during the meeting, within days, statements were made
by the UTK football coaching staff publicly supporting A.J. Johnson. In a post-practice interview on
November 19, 2014, Linebackers Coach Tommy Thigpen even went so far as to say (in reference to
Johnson) “He’s a great player, great kid, great ambassador," and "I look forward to him getting
back."10
179. The school and athletic department, that Plaintiff Doe IV once considered herself
proud to be a part of, made it clear “whose side they were on” and abandoned Plaintiff Doe IV in
silence while simultaneously affirming the character of the football players who raped her.
180. The student body and UTK fan base adopted and mirrored the sentiment expressed
by the athletic department and coaching staff and Plaintiff Doe IV was ridiculed, shamed and vilified
in virtually every public forum.
181. A few weeks later in December 2014, A.J. Johnson was allowed to graduate in a special
ceremony from which photos were posted of him posing with Chancellor Jimmy Cheek and Athletic
Director Dave Hart (in the very athletic facility Plaintiff had been told Johnson would not be allowed
to “step foot on”).
182. The ceremony itself was significant as it was held and offered exclusively to members

10

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2014/11/19/ut-student-leaders-decry-victim-blaming-amid-rapeallegations/19301797/
31 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 31 of 64 PageID #: 2090

 of the athletic department and, moreover, some of the photos were published by the official UT
Twitter (vol_football) account.11

183. Photos of A.J. Johnson and Curt Maggitt from the 2014 Student-Athlete Winter

11

Plaintiffs have since learned that the University had access and authority to control A.J. Johnson’s (and
other “major sports” athletes’) social media accounts.
32 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 32 of 64 PageID #: 2091

 Graduation remain on the official UT sports website (utsports.com) as recently as December, 2015.

184. Even though the media had already highlighted the lack of empathy or support for
the victims of sexual assault at UT (see fn. 1, supra), the athletic department through its football
coaches and players continued to publicly support the men who raped Plaintiff Doe IV-as shown in
the photographs published after the bowl game12.

12

The photographs below were taken following Tennessee’s Bowl Game victory with both players and coaches
using their hands to show number “45” in support of A.J. Johnson, who reposted the photos and
acknowledged the support with the caption “My squad showing Much Love*** Great Win*** Thats how you
#LightEmUp#LB’s #VFL”. These photographs (and numerous similar photos) were widely published on
social media including direct postings by UT coaches, including Coach Larry Knight.
33 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 33 of 64 PageID #: 2092

 185. During a telephone conversation with her varsity team’s head coach in February of
2015, Plaintiff Doe IV specifically requested a conference with the University’s Title IX coordinator.
Despite the coach’s assurances, no such conference was ever scheduled and Plaintiff Doe IV has not

34 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 34 of 64 PageID #: 2093

 received further communication from the Title IX coordinator.
186. The University's investigation took nearly six months (the report was provided to
Plaintiff on May 4, 2015) but no actual disciplinary action has been taken despite the findings of
student misconduct.
187. Plaintiff Doe IV was subjected to numerous character attacks and threats on social
media and sports blogs that caused her severe emotional distress, and created and deepened a hostile
environment for her on the basis of her sex.
188. Because of the actions by the University, its coaches, administration and athletics
program, Plaintiff could not continue her education at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville and
was forced to sit out the Spring, 2015 semester while trying to find another place to continue her
education and collegiate athletics (which had afforded Plaintiff the financial opportunity to attend
school in the first place).
Plaintiff Jane Doe V
189. Plaintiff Jane Doe V was a Title IX investigation witness subjected to retaliation and
the collective “victim blaming” that occurred in the wake of the assault of her teammate, roommate
and friend, Plaintiff Jane Doe IV.
190. Directly after the assault on Plaintiff Doe IV, Plaintiff Doe V was the recipient of
multiple communications from football players, including one of the alleged rapists. These were
reported by Plaintiff Doe V on November 16 and 17 to the varsity coach and Mike Ward, who were
already aware of the players’ actions but made no assurances that they would be addressed by the
University.
191. The effects on Plaintiff Doe V were traumatic and worsened by UT’s repeated failures
to cure the environment and effectively implement interim or remedial measures.
192. In addition to being contacted after UT had notice of the assault and in addition to
seeing one of the attackers (Mike Williams) in the academic center for athletes (after being expressly
assured neither Williams or Johnson would be allowed in the athletic facilities), Plaintiff Doe V
witnessed the intimidation and physical retaliation by other UT football players against another
witness in the investigation, Drae Bowles when he was attacked by UT football players Orta and
Maggitt at the Smokey’s dining hall.
35 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 35 of 64 PageID #: 2094

 193. Plaintiff Doe V reported this directly to UT administrators and, further, reported that
the attack on Bowles had been witnessed by members of the coaching staff.
194. No assurances were made and no action was taken by UT in response to Plaintiff Doe
V’s reports, even after she notified administrators of accounts of a second physical assault on Bowles
by the same players in the team facility (locker room).
195. Plaintiff Doe V was forced to move dorm rooms and her grades suffered.
196. Eventually, Plaintiff Doe V was forced to leave school because of UT’s failure to
protect her from a hostile sexually discriminatory environment and the resulting trauma. As a direct
result of the incident, Plaintiff Doe V has been diagnosed with PTSD with severe anxiety and was
medically restricted from attending school for the entire Spring 2015, semester.
197. Plaintiff Doe V attempted to maintain communications with her coach, in an effort to
return to UT when she was medically cleared. However, because of UT’s continued failure to cure
the hostile environment and because during the conversations (on or around March/April 2015), the
coach made statements to the effect that Plaintiff’s return would be conditioned on requirements
that she (Plaintiff Doe V) could not associate or socialize with the same group of people—insinuating
that the rape and events that had followed were somehow the result of the girls’ (members of the
row team, including Plaintiff Doe IV's) actions, Plaintiff Doe V was forced to look to other schools.
December 2014: Another UT Football Player Arrested, Discipline Handled “Internally”
198. On December 3, 2014, UT football player Jalen Hurd (the team’s starting running
back

and

leading

rusher)

was

arrested

by

citation

for

underage

drinking.

See

http://www.tennessean.com/story/vols/2014/12/18/butch-jones-jalen-hurd-discipline/20595979/ ( last
accessed 11/18/15).
199. The incident was not initially publicized until after an article was published by the
Tennesseean the following week. Id.
200. In a subsequent press conference, Head Football Coach Butch Jones said the running
back was disciplined internally and that the incident would not affect Hurd’s status with the team—
specifically

as

to

the

upcoming

bowl

game

on

January

2,

2015.

See

http://www.tennessean.com/story/vols/2014/12/18/butch-jones-jalen-hurd-discipline/20595979/ ( last
accessed 11/18/15).

36 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 36 of 64 PageID #: 2095

 Plaintiff Jane Doe VI
201. Plaintiff Jane Doe VI was allegedly sexually assaulted on February 5, 2015, by UT
student and football player Riyahd Jones. The details of Plaintiff Doe VI’s assault are documented
in the University’s Investigative Report.
202. At the time of the assault, Plaintiff Doe VI was a sophomore (2014/15 academic year)
attending UT with full tuition provided through academic scholarship/financial aid, living in an offcampus apartment complex called the “Gateways of Knoxville,” with one other roommate who dated
Riyahd Jones.
203. Prior to the assault on February 5, 2015, there were two previous incidents where
Riyahd Jones “made a pass” at Plaintiff Doe VI while he was dating her roommate. The first time
took place in Plaintiff Doe VI’s apartment around October 2014 and the second in December 2014.
Plaintiff Doe VI clearly communicated to Mr. Jones that his advances were unwanted and informed
her roommate of the incidents on both occasions.13
204. After the assault was reported to the police and while KPD was searching for Riyahd
Jones, Plaintiff’s roommate was repeatedly called by Riyahd Jones’s roommates (also football
players) who were threatening/pleading (through roommate) for Plaintiff to drop the allegations.
205. One of the football players who contacted Plaintiff’s roommate in an effort to mitigate
the damage was Deanthonie Summerhill (a UT running back who was living with Riyahd Jones).
206. Given the preceding events at UT, these players should have been educated
extensively (and on multiple occasions) regarding the impropriety of attempts to contact a victim of
an alleged sexual assault.
207. Plaintiff is unaware of any effort by UTK to notify her teachers of the situation, in
complete abrogation of UTK’s duties under Title IX, to afford academic remedies to a victim.
208. UT Football players should have received training (apart from standard instruction)
following each of the preceding incidents involving athletes. The actions by UT football players in

13

It is important to note that, under its obligations under Title IX, Jones would have been subjected to
education materials covering sexual assaults and consent on multiple occasions due to other reported
incidents that occurred during the academic year leading to the alleged February 5, 2015, assault on Ms. Doe
VI. Questions and Answers on Title IX and Sexual Violence at 38.
37 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 37 of 64 PageID #: 2096

 wake of the assault in attempting to contact Plaintiff Doe VI (directly and through her friends),
follow same. The “advice” communicated by UT football player Todd Kelly to Plaintiff’s current
boyfriend (and his parents) should have been treated as a violation of the no-contact directive, is
retaliatory, and is further evidence of a lack of training/instruction-especially considering the nature
of the instructions required under Title IX and the repeated preceding incidents involving football
players.
209. The University’s investigative findings of the incident are completely void of any
reference to the post-assault communications by the other UT football players.
210. As in previous investigations, the victim’s statement and credibility were completely
discounted.
211. Further, the findings represent a fundamental misunderstanding and misapplication
of the very definitions of “consent” as set forth by UT in the report.
202. In deciding that Jones’s account was more likely than Plaintiff’s, UT investigators
relied heavily on the fact that certain witnesses to the investigation did not participate or respond to
requests for interviews despite Plaintiff’s reports to the investigators that Jones and other football
players were contacting those witnesses (and their families) and despite other witnesses’ statements
confirming similar repeated communications by the football players. Id. at 15.
203. No discipline resulted from the communications and contact to witnesses by the
football players.
204. The UT investigators also relied heavily on a statement offered by Riyahd Jones that
provided that Plaintiff “told him to leave” and that he, without obtaining consent, ignored the request
and instead kissed her. The statement further provides that Plaintiff then turned her back to Jones
before he proceeded, again without obtaining consent, to perform oral sex and vaginally penetrate
her. Id. at 9.
205. Still, UT determined that, because Plaintiff did not resist and appeared sexually
aroused, she consented to the sexual encounter, evidencing an extreme bias for the athlete’s
statement or, alternatively, a lack of competency and training. See June 3, 2015, Investigative Report
at 2-3, 14-15.
206. As a result of the assault, Plaintiff was forced to move out of the apartment and return

38 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 38 of 64 PageID #: 2097

 home with her parents. She did not have any run-ins with Jones on campus following the incident;
however, her current boyfriend was told by other UT football players to “stay away” from her. One
of these football players was Todd Kelly (“TK”), who had gone to high school with the current
boyfriend. TK and TK’s parents both communicated same to current boyfriend and current
boyfriend’s parents-again, in staunch violation of the no contact order and contrary to the required
education from the prior instances.
207. As a direct result of the incident, Plaintiff Doe VI was forced to miss class on multiple
occasions for court and other appointments relating to the alleged assault.
208. Plaintiff informed her teachers whenever she had documentation to support the
absence but did not discuss specifics.
209. Eventually, the number of absences necessitated her withdrawal from school for the
semester with no credits earned though Title IX assured her academic remedies for such absences.
210. Because of the requirements (to remain a student for duration of scholarship/aid), she
was initially determined not to qualify for continuation of her financial aid/scholarships. Plaintiff
Doe VI was forced to appeal these decisions-some of which are still pending as of the December
2015.
211. Riyahd Jones was allowed to remain in school, graduate at the end of the spring 2015
semester, granted a release and has since transferred to Georgia Southern where he continues
playing football.
212. Jones’ graduation occurred on May 7, 2015, nearly a month before the University of
Tennessee (in violation of the timing guidelines for investigations under Title IX and UT’s own
policies) concluded its investigation. Both Jones and the University celebrated his graduation,
publishing photos through the school’s official website (identifying Jones as an athlete) and on social

39 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 39 of 64 PageID #: 2098

 media.

March 2015: UT Football Player Arrested
213. In March 2015, UT football player Coleman Thomas was arrested and charged with
felony

theft.

See

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/crime/2015/03/26/ut-football-player-

coleman-thomas-arrested-felony-theft/70504536/ ( last accessed 11/18/15). The property had been
stolen from a fellow student’s dorm room in Reese Hall and was reported stolen to the University of
Tennessee Department on March 13, 2015. Id.
214. Thomas was represented by Knoxville attorney Don Bosch in the incident. See
http://www.local8now.com/home/headlines/Felony-charges-dropped-against-UT-offensivelineman-299844811.html (last visited December 8, 2015). The charges were later dropped against
Thomas, who claimed he did not realize the property was stolen when he sold it, and an arrest
warrant (related to the same charges) was then issued for Michael Sawyers, who had been dismissed
from the team (without official University discipline) in a statement earlier that year on February 4,

40 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 40 of 64 PageID #: 2099

 for “violation of team rules.” See http://www.knoxnews.com/govolsxtra/football/jenkins-whartongranted-releases-sawyers-dismissed_42943570 ( last accessed 11/18/15).
215. Upon information and belief, Sawyers was not subjected to University discipline under
its Hilltopics policy at the instruction of Head Coach Butch Jones to handle the matter internally,
allowing Sawyers to remain in school (even if off the team) and commit theft.
July 2015: UT Football Player Arrested
216. On or around July 22, 2015, UT football player Charles Mosley was arrested for
driving under the influence after being pulled over by Tennessee Highway Patrol for driving 79 miles
per hour in a 55 mph zone. Reports of the incident (citing the arrest warrant) reflected that
marijuana residue was found in the front passenger area and back seat of Mosley’s car. See
http://www.wbir.com/story/sports/college/vols/football/2015/07/22/vols-lineman-charles-mosleyarrested-for-dui/30538423/%20 ( last accessed 11/18/15).
217. During the annual pre-camp news conference in early August 2015, UT Head Coach
Butch Jones confirmed that Mosley was still on the team and stated in reference to the arrest, that
“All

discipline

will

be

done

internally.”

See

http://www.wbir.com/story/sports/college/vols/football/2015/08/03/butch-jones-addresses-media-pre-camp-news-conference/31055719/ ( last accessed 11/18/15).
November 28, 2015: Hostile Environment Remains Uncured
218. Despite the (still) pending University disciplinary charges and ongoing criminal
proceedings, as recently as November 28, 2015, the hostile environment at the University remains
uncured and photographs show AJ Johnson enjoying special on-field privileges in staunch
disregard of the assurances to the victims that he would no longer be allowed anywhere on the
athletic department’s footprint. See http://www.knoxnews.com/govolsxtra/football/exvol-accused-in-

41 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 41 of 64 PageID #: 2100

 rape-seeks-emergency-appeal-of-social-media-order_37588200 (last visited December 3, 2015).

42 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 42 of 64 PageID #: 2101

 COUNT I :Violation of Title IX – 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a)
219. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
220. Defendant UT receives federal financial assistance for its education program.
Therefore, UT is subject to the provisions of Title IX of the Education Act of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681
(a), et seq.
221. For all Plaintiffs, an “appropriate person” at UT had actual knowledge of the
discrimination and harassment as alleged by Plaintiffs. This includes the creation and maintenance
of a hostile sexual environment before the five rapes at issue and actual notice and knowledge of the
extreme risks of sexual assaults by direct notice from Vice-Chancellor Rogers to Cheek, Hart and
DiPietro.
222. UT acted with deliberate indifference to known acts of harassment in its programs
and activities prior to the direct assaults on Plaintiffs detailed herein. UT was deliberately indifferent
as its response to the harassment or lack thereof was clearly unreasonable in light of the known
circumstances. 14
223. The “Before” Case: UT has liability for the rapes themselves because the UT
Administration, Athletic Department and coaches intentionally violated Title IX and had official
policies that violated Title IX, especially under the analysis of the Simpson and Gebser cases (500
F.3d 1170, 10th Cir. 2007; 524 U.S. 274 (1998)):
a. Showing high-school football recruits a ‘‘good time’’ on their visits to the UT campus;
b. Providing alcohol to recruits and underage UT female students;
c. Acting with deliberate indifference to known sexual assaults so as to create a hostile
sexual environment;
d. Acting with deliberate indifference to athlete parties that involved drug use and
furnishing of alcohol by athletes to underage UT female students;

14

Although no particular response is required, and although the school district is not required to eradicate all
sexual harassment, the school district must respond and must do so reasonably in light of the known
circumstances. Thus, where a school district has knowledge that its remedial action is inadequate and
ineffective, it is required to take reasonable action in light of those circumstances to eliminate the behavior.
Where a school district has actual knowledge that its efforts to remediate are ineffective, and it continues to
use those same methods to no avail, such district has failed to act reasonably in light of the known
circumstances. Vance v. Spencer County Public School Dist., 231 F.3d 253, 260-261 (6th Cir. 2000).
43 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 43 of 64 PageID #: 2102

 e. Intentionally creating a long-standing systemic severely hostile sexual environment
of rapes by male athletes despite repeated actual notices (from Vice-Chancellor Rogers) of
rapes and sexual assaults by male athletes (particularly football and basketball players);
f. A pattern of deliberate acts without regard to the known risks of Chancellor Jimmy
Cheek and Athletic Department Director and Vice-Chancellor Dave Hart’s interfering with
the disciplinary process for male scholarship football and basketball athletes charged with
sexual assaults by undue influence on the Office of Student Judicial Affairs;
g. A pattern of deliberate acts without regard to the known risks of covering up sexual
assaults and rapes by football and basketball players;
h. A pattern and conspiracy of deliberate acts without regard to the known risks of
condoning sexual assaults by a systemic failure to discipline male scholarship football and
basketball athletes charged with sexual athletes;
i.

A pattern of deliberate acts without regard to the known risks of providing/arranging

housing for scholarship athletes known to have been involved in sexual assaults (rapes) and
known to have provided alcohol and illegal drugs to underage recruits and underage female
UT students;
j.

A pattern of deliberate acts without regard to the known risks of placing (housing)

freshman female students in the athletic dorm (Vol Hall) with upper class athletes from the
football and basketball team despite the UT Administration having been specifically warned
by Vice-Chancellor Rogers against the risk of such placement given the known prior sexual
assaults by male athletic team members;
k. A pattern of deliberate acts without regard to the known risks of giving special and
favorable treatment to male scholarship football and basketball athletes charged with sexual
assault by arranging for special outside legal counsel to represent athletes charged with sexual
assaults and not affording the same legal resources to victims;
l.

A pattern of deliberate acts without regard to the known risks of supporting,

maintaining and controlling environments for athletes in the major sports of football and
basketball that encouraged underage drinking, drug use and rape;
m. A pattern of deliberate acts, without regard to the known risks, of causing sexual

44 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 44 of 64 PageID #: 2103

 assault disciplinary cases involving athletes to be handled outside the normal UT student
disciplinary process via the Tennessee Uniform Administrative Procedures Act;
n. A pattern of deliberate indifference to student safety by a failure to reform UT
policies and procedures to assure compliance with Title IX, namely with respect to the
inequitable and non-prompt TUAPA elective hearing process;
o. A pattern of deliberate acts, without regard to the known risks, of unreasonably
failing to take prompt, adequate and effective remedial actions and measures to remedy a
substantial and known risk of sexual assaults and rapes by athletes;
p. A pattern of deliberate acts, without regard to the known risks, of having actual
knowledge that UT’s efforts, if any, to remediate the hostile sexual environment by male
scholarship athletes was ineffective, yet UT continued to use those same methods to no avail
and failed to act reasonably in light of the known circumstances;
q. Acting with deliberate indifference after actual knowledge of sexual assaults. UT
administration (Chancellor Cheek), athletic department (Dave Hart) and football coach
(Butch Jones) were personally aware (as “appropriate persons” under Title IX) and had actual
notice of previous sexual assaults and rapes by football players, yet acted with deliberate
indifference to the serious risks of sexual assaults and failed to take corrective actions;
r. A pattern of deliberate acts, without regard to the known risks, of failing to follow
UT’s own policies of conducting fair and impartial investigations into sexual assault;
s. A pattern of deliberate acts, without regard to the known risks, of failing to conduct
investigations into sexual assaults after responsible “appropriate” persons had actual
knowledge of sexual assaults by male scholarship athletes; and,
t. A pattern of deliberate acts, without regard to the known risks, of deliberately
compromising the fairness and integrity of misconduct and disciplinary investigations by
conspiring with accused athletes and witnesses to minimize sexual assault misconduct, “get the
stories straight” and paint the female UT student victim as at fault or being “the aggressor.”
UT’s acts and omissions caused discrimination and sexual harassment so severe, pervasive,
and objectively offensive that it effectively barred the victims’ access (including Plaintiffs
herein) to an educational opportunity or benefit. All Plaintiffs were forced to leave school. A

45 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 45 of 64 PageID #: 2104

 federal court in Tennessee, citing Sixth Circuit case law, has held “even a single incident of
rape is sufficient to establish that a child was subjected to severe, pervasive, and objectively
offensive sexual harassment for purposes of Title IX.”15
u. Deliberate difference to prior misconduct by the same perpetrators facilitated the
rape of Doe IV and showed a deliberate disregard of and failure to remedy a hostile
environment on the basis of sex
224. The official policy of use of the TUAPA for perpetuators is contrary to federal law
and has been deliberately used and misused by the University of Tennessee to foster and maintain a
hostile and discriminatory sexual environment that not only insulates athletes from discipline and
sanctions but facilitates and encourages sexual assaults because athletes know the process can be
rigged, dragged out, and used so that they suffer no consequences
225. Based on the foregoing factual allegations, Plaintiffs aver that the actions and
inactions of the University of Tennessee constitute a systemic pattern of deliberate decisions by its
administrators directly in violation of the rights of its students to be free from a sexually
discriminatory and harassing environment. Moreover, the acts of the University were performed in
full, conscious disregard of known risks and in staunch violation of Title IX, and its repeated failures
to take steps to remedy the hostile environment resulted in the discriminatory acts to Plaintiffs herein
and in an ongoing pattern of unreasonably inadequate response, furthering the discrimination
suffered by Plaintiffs and ultimately depriving them of their educational opportunities.
226. Plaintiffs would not have been subjected to the discriminatory acts of UT itself,
(through the TUAPA process and its general failure to cure the known hostile sexual environment
on campus), or to the discriminatory acts of third parties under UT’s control, had plaintiffs not been
female victims of male (alleged) attackers.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs were denied educational

opportunities on the basis of sex.
COUNT II: Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983:
Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief & Under Supremacy Clause,
Article VI, Clause 2, of the United States Constitution.

15

Lopez v. Metro Gov’t, 646 F. Supp. 2d 891, 913 (M.D. Tenn. 2009) (citing Soper v. Hoben, 195 F.3d 845 (6th
Cir. 1999).
46 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 46 of 64 PageID #: 2105

 227. Plaintiff avers that the Office of the Director of the Office of Student Conduct &
Community Standards has violated the Supremacy Clause and the equal protection rights of
Plaintiffs through his application of the TUAPA. Under Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908)
Plaintiffs may sue challenging the constitutionality of a state official’s action as the action is not one
against the State. Ford Motor Co. v. Dep’t of Treasury, 323 U.S. 459, 464 (1945).
228. By applying TUAPA hearing and discovery procedures and rights only to accused
perpetrators of sexual assault but not to alleged victims of sexual assaults (including Plaintiffs), UT
administrators (e.g., the Director of Student Conduct & Community Standards), in their official
capacities, denied Plaintiffs equal protection of the law in violation of the Supremacy Clause, Article
VI, Clause 2, of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §1983 and equal protection clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
229. The official policy of UT and the Tennessee Board of Regents is to have two
conflicting sets of sexual misconduct policies: one policy that purports to comply with Title IX (and
ensures, for example, that a victim

will not be forced to confront her assailant)

http://smrv.utdev4.wpengine.com/wpcontent/uploads/sites/34/2015/08/Sexual_Misconduct_and_Relationship-_Violence_PolicyUTK_4844-5950-8507.pdf; and a second, separate “contested case” procedure under the TUAPA
whereby the accused assailant can invoke an adversary proceeding and depose the victim; conduct
discovery; and subject the victim to a full blown hearing with a judge and the rules of evidence.
. https://policies.tbr.edu/policies/uniform-procedures-cases-subject-tn-uniform-administrativeprocedures-act.
230. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28
U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 that UT’s and the Tennessee Board of Regents’ application of the TUAPA
to sexual assault complaints: is preempted (conflict preemption) by Title IX16 and the Campus Save
Act (VAWA Section 304)17; violates Title IX and the Campus Save Act; deprives Plaintiffs of their
16

Title IX provides in pertinent part: “no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded
from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education
program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
17
The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, Pub. L. No. 113-4, 127 Stat. 54 (codified in
scattered sections of the U.S. Code), included, as section 304, the Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act,
Id. § 304, 127 Stat. at 89-92 (codified at 20 U.S.C. § 1092 (2012)), ("Campus Save") that sets forth detailed

47 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 47 of 64 PageID #: 2106

 rights to equal protection of laws under the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 such that
UT, through the Chancellor, General Counsel, and Director of Student Conduct, in their official
capacities, should be enjoined from any present and future acts or efforts to allow or apply the
TUAPA to sexual misconduct cases, including the pending actions involving A.J. Johnson, Michael
Williams and John Doe II.
231. The above acts and omissions by UT and its officers acting under color of state law
deprived Plaintiffs or federal civil rights of which a reasonable person (and/or school administrator)
would have known.18
Count III: Declaratory and Injunctive Relief for Violations of Title IX.
232. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
233. Plaintiffs seek a mandatory injunction ordering the UT to refrain from unlawful
discrimination and/or retaliation, ordering UT to undertake and rectify any and all Title IX violations
and/or inequities, ordering UT and its athletic department to refrain from creating and condoning
a hostile sexual harassment and/or discrimination environment against individuals on the basis of
sex by immediately ceasing deliberate indifference to sexual assaults; direct interference with the
disciplinary process in favor of male athletes who were charged with rape; directly supporting,
maintaining and controlling environments for athletes in the major sports of football and basketball
that encouraged underage drinking, drug use and rape; arranging for/facilitating lawyers for athletes
accused of sexual assault, providing or subsidizing premises known as party houses for athletes used
for underage drinking and drugs to entice recruits to come UT; unlawfully discriminating against

requirements for compliance with Title IX and the Clery Act, see 20 U.S.C. § 1092. See
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-113publ4/pdf/PLAW-113publ4.pdf (section 304 being the Campus Save
Act that amended the Clery Act). Although the Clery Act (containing the Campus Save act) provides no
private cause of action, the courts of appeals have uniformly held that when proceeding under the Supremacy
Clause to enforce a safety net statute, plaintiffs need not meet the requirements for a cause of action set forth
in Gonzaga./107/ Indeed, for a preemption claim, there is no need for a statutory cause of action./108/ A claim
that a federal law has preemptive force under the Supremacy Clause is distinct from a statutory claim to
enforce the federal law, and therefore, the absence of a cause of action in the statute does not defeat the
preemption claim.
18
A federal District Court in Colorado has specifically held that a student’s right to be free from sexual assault
perpetrated by another student is “clearly established,” such that school officials were not entitled to the
defense of qualified immunity. McArthur v. Acad. Sch. Dist. Twenty, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 20971, *14 (Colo.
Dist. Ct. 2007)
48 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 48 of 64 PageID #: 2107

 victims of sexual assault and fostering a hostile sexual environment by the misuse of a one-sided
Tennessee Uniform Administrative Procedures Act (“TUAPA”) procedure.
Plaintiff Doe I’s Claims Under Title IX
234. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
235. Plaintiff avers that UT has violated OCR regulations, policies, and “Dear Colleague”
letters and that such violations constitute evidence of Title IX violations. See Biediger v. Quinnipac
University, 728 F.Supp. 2d 6210 (Conn. 2010).
236. Plaintiff avers that UT unlawfully applies the Tennessee Uniform Administrative
Procedures Act (“TUAPA”) to provide hearings only to alleged perpetrators of sexual assaults.
237. Plaintiff avers that application of TUAPA procedures to campus sexual assault
investigations subjects victims of sexual assaults to unlawful harassment and undue hardship, and
that such inequitable procedures are are preempted by Title IX and the Campus Save Act.
238. UT’s own policies recognize that TUAPA procedures must be modified to comply
with Title IX and federal law (Sexual Misconduct and Relationship Violence Policy (2015)).
239. The rape of Plaintiff Doe I was a causal result of UT’s deliberate indifference and
policy decisions to create a hostile sexual environment. UT consciously disregarded the general and
specific warnings raised by Jenny Wright and Tim Rogers. As set forth above, UT is liable for the
rape itself under the before theory of liability under Title IX for its direct actions in creating and
maintaining a hostile sexual environment.
240. UT is also liable under the after theory of liability under Title IX.
241. UT’s responses to the harassment were clearly unreasonable in light of the known
circumstances.
242. The discrimination, consisting of Makanjuola’s rape of Plaintiff Doe I, the risks to
Plaintiff Doe I’s safety, the acts and omissions by members of UT’s administration and athletic
department in violation of Title IX including the failure to take remedial action was so severe,
pervasive, and objectively offensive that it barred Plaintiff Doe I’s access to educational opportunities
and benefits.
243. Plaintiff was subjected to the discrimination because of the University’s deliberate
indifference to known acts of harassment, sexual violence, discrimination and retaliation, including,

49 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 49 of 64 PageID #: 2108

 without limitation:
a. UT’s deliberate decisions not to disclose Makanjuola’s rape of Plaintiff or the
investigation so that Makanjuola’s basketball season or eligibility to transfer would not be
affected;
b. The provision or facilitation of access to special counsel (Don Bosch) by UT;
c. UT’s deliberate decision to refrain from imposing any discipline within the required
timeframe under Title IX and its own policies under the guise of complying with the Tennessee
Uniform Administrative Procedures Act with full knowledge that Makanjuola would not
attend or participate in any hearing—thereby subjecting Plaintiff Doe I not only to
unnecessary delay, but also an unnecessary hearing during which she was forced to relive her
rape and was subjected to offensive and needless examination;
d. UT’s deliberate decision not to seek any form of discipline for Makanjuola that
would affect him (or the basketball program) in any way;
e. UT’s deliberate decision not to adequately advise Plaintiff Doe I of her right to
appeal the inadequate and ineffective discipline of an “indefinite suspension” to a player who
had already been granted a release and effectuated a transfer, thereby allowing him to
subsequently make contact;
f. UT’s deliberate decision not to take action to remedy the effects of the hostile
environment required by Title IX (and separate from any interim measures) at the conclusion
of the disciplinary proceedings such as notifying Plaintiff’s teachers of the traumatic
experience, the provision of academic support services or arranging for Plaintiff to have extra
time to re-take a class or withdraw from a class without academic or financial penalty and
instead disqualifying Plaintiff from the nursing program for a shortcoming in her GPA of less
than one tenth (0.1) of a point despite being provided medical evidence that Plaintiff’s
academic performance had suffered as a direct result of the rape;
g. UT and the athletics department failure to train and educate their players to prevent
and remedy a known hostile environment toward women that existed within the athletic
program.
244. Had UT not been deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s harassment and discrimination

50 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 50 of 64 PageID #: 2109

 and, further, had UT not taken self-serving action to protect the interests of its athletic department,
basketball program, coaches and players and instead complied with its own policies and federal law
by acknowledging Plaintiff’s rape and employing a disciplinary process that was prompt and
equitable, Makanjuola would have been removed as a threat to Plaintiff and Plaintiff would have
completed the nursing program. Instead, Plaintiff was forced to leave campus, set back years from
her academic track (incurring significant costs in the process) and undergo further emotional trauma
while Makanjuola was praised by members of the athletic department, granted a transfer and allowed
to continue playing collegiate sports (on scholarship) ---suffering no consequences whatsoever.
Plaintiff Doe II’s Claims Under Title IX
245. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
246. Plaintiff Doe II pleads the “erroneous outcome” doctrine under Title IX, set forth in
Yusuf v. Vassar College, 35 F.3d 709 (2nd Cir. 1994), as to UT’s flawed investigation into the sexual
assault of Doe II.
247. The rape of Plaintiff Doe II was a causal result of UT’s deliberate indifference and
policy decisions to create a hostile sexual environment. UT consciously disregarded the general and
specific warnings raised by Jenny Wright and Tim Rogers. As set forth above, UT is liable for the
rape itself under the before theory of liability under Title IX for its direct actions in creating and
maintaining a hostile sexual environment.
248. UT is also liable under the after theory of liability under Title IX.
249. UT’s responses to the harassment were clearly unreasonable in light of the known
circumstances.
250. The discrimination, consisting of Mr. Doe I’s rape of Plaintiff Doe II, the risks to
Plaintiff Doe II’s safety, the acts and omissions by members of UT’s administration and athletic
department in violation of Title IX including the failure to take remedial action was so severe,
pervasive, and objectively offensive that it barred Plaintiff Doe II’s access to educational
opportunities and benefits.
251. Plaintiff was subjected to the discrimination because of the University’s deliberate
indifference to known acts of harassment, sexual violence, discrimination and retaliation, including,
without limitation:

51 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 51 of 64 PageID #: 2110

 a. UT’s deliberate decisions not to disclose Mr. Doe I’s rape of Plaintiff or the
investigation so that Mr. Doe I’s (or the University’s, see fn 2, supra) football season would
not be affected;
b. UT’s deliberate decisions during the “disciplinary process”: to reverse the initial
findings (against Mr. Doe I) without providing any substantive basis and without any appeal
communicated to Plaintiff; to remove the investigator and instead appoint a new investigator
of its own choice; to subject Plaintiff Doe II to clearly retaliatory allegations and concurrent
investigations in an effort to intimidate and dissuade her from pursuing her claims; to take no
action whatsoever against Mr. Doe I for the retaliatory and completely false accusations
against Plaintiff; to allow additional time (and multiple interviews) wherein football players
were given an opportunity to “get their stories straight”; to fail to accurately characterize the
statements provided by witnesses or investigate said statements with sufficient diligence upon
receiving notice of the discrepancies and to utilize a biased appeal system contra to its own
policies that utterly failed Plaintiff Doe II in favor of a football player assisted by prominent
counsel;
c. UT’s deliberate decision (in its “second” investigative findings) to include, in its
findings, an unnecessary and highly unusual conclusion that, not only could it not proceed with
disciplinary charges, but that the sexual encounter was consensual;
d. UT’s deliberate decision not to take interim measures or action to remedy the effects
of the hostile environment required by Title IX during the investigation or at the conclusion
of the disciplinary proceedings such as: notifying Plaintiff’s teachers of the traumatic
experience or providing academic support services or arranging for Plaintiff to have extra time
to re-take a class or withdraw from a class without academic or financial penalty despite
specifically finding that Plaintiff was traumatized by the event (while simultaneously finding
that the encounter was consensual).
e. UT’s denial to Jane Doe II of procedural equal rights and refusing to conduct a
hearing on her case.
f. UT and the athletics department failure to train and educate their players to prevent
and remedy a known hostile environment toward women that existed within the athletic
program.

52 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 52 of 64 PageID #: 2111

 256. Had UT not been deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s harassment and discrimination
and, further, had UT not taken self-serving action to protect the interests of its athletic department,
football program, coaches and players and instead complied with its own policies and federal law by
acknowledging Plaintiff’s rape and employing a disciplinary process that was prompt and equitable,
Mr. Doe I would have been removed as a threat to Plaintiff and Plaintiff would have maintained her
academic track and be working towards earning her degree at UT. Instead, Plaintiff was forced to
leave campus, set back years from her academic track (incurring significant costs in the process) and
underwent further emotional trauma while Mr. Doe I remained on campus and was allowed to
continue playing collegiate sports suffering no substantive consequences whatsoever.
Plaintiff Doe III’s Claims Under Title IX
257. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
258. The rape of Plaintiff Doe III was a causal result of UT’s deliberate indifference and
policy decisions to create a hostile sexual environment. UT consciously disregarded the general and
specific warnings raised by Jenny Wright and Tim Rogers. As set forth above, UT is liable for the
rape itself under the before theory of liability under Title IX for its direct actions in creating and
maintaining a hostile sexual environment. UT’s deliberate decisions not to take any actual
disciplinary action as to Treyvon Paulk so that he could potentially return to the team at a later point
when he could actually play (when he was not medically red-shirted) and instead allowing him to
remain in school and on scholarship while continuously maintaining the hostile and dangerous
environment in Vol Hall and practice of providing alcohol to minors as was done to Plaintiff Doe III
on the evening she was eventually raped by Mr. Doe II and others.
259. UT is liable under the after theory of liability under Title IX.
260. UT’s responses to the harassment were clearly unreasonable in light of the known
circumstances.
261. The discrimination, consisting of Mr. Doe II’s rape of Plaintiff Doe III, the risks to
Plaintiff Doe III’s safety, the acts and omissions by members of UT’s administration in violation of
Title IX including the failure to take remedial action was so severe, pervasive, and objectively
offensive that it barred Plaintiff Doe III’s access to educational opportunities and benefits.
262. Plaintiff was subjected to the discrimination because of the University’s deliberate
indifference to known acts of harassment, sexual violence, discrimination and retaliation, including,
53 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 53 of 64 PageID #: 2112

 without limitation:
a. UT’s deliberate decisions to continue to employ known ineffective interim measures
and allowing Mr. Doe II to remain on campus and to be present in Plaintiff’s dorm, thereby
subjecting Plaintiff to additional contact with her rapist;
b. UT’s deliberate decision not to take interim measures or action to remedy the effects
of the hostile environment required by Title IX during the investigation such as: notifying
Plaintiff’s teachers of the traumatic experience, the provision of academic support services or
arranging for Plaintiff to have extra time to re-take a class or withdraw from a class without
academic or financial penalty;
c. UT’s deliberate decision to refrain from imposing any discipline within the required
timeframe under Title IX and its own policies under the guise of complying with the Tennessee
Uniform Administrative Procedures Act with full knowledge that Mr. Doe II will likely not
participate in the hearing and with full knowledge that additional delay would disadvantage
the prosecution of the disciplinary charges charged;
d. UT’s deliberate decision to refrain from seeking retroactive punishment against Mr.
Doe II, provide explanation as to why retroactive punishment was not being sought, despite
repeated requests by Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel;
e. UT’s deliberate decision to make scheduling accommodations at Mr. Doe II’s (and
his attorney & outside counsel’s) request —thereby subjecting Plaintiff Doe III not only to
unnecessary delay, but also in fear that she would be required to give additional statements
and deposition testimony that would force her to relive her rape and subject her to
examination by Mr. Doe II’s counsel;
g. UT’s deliberate decisions during the “disciplinary process”: to refrain from
implementing any interim measures and instead delay its investigation, thereby allowing
additional time wherein witnesses and the rapists were given an opportunity to “get their
stories straight.”
h. UT and the athletics department failure to train and educate their players to prevent
and remedy a known hostile environment toward women that existed within the athletic
program.

54 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 54 of 64 PageID #: 2113

 263. Had UT not been deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s harassment and discrimination
and instead employed effective interim measures and a disciplinary process that was prompt and
equitable, Mr. Doe II would have been removed as a threat to Plaintiff and Plaintiff would have
maintained her academic track and be working towards earning her degree at UT. Instead, Plaintiff
was subjected to further contact with one of her rapists, additional emotional and psychological
trauma, forced to leave campus, set back years from her academic track (incurring significant costs
in the process) all while Mr. Doe II was allowed to remain on campus, suffering no substantive
consequences whatsoever and facing no substantive punishment (punishment retroactive to the date
of Mr. Doe II’s raping of Plaintiff)—punishment available under its policies and requested by
Plaintiff.
Plaintiff Doe IV’s Claims Under Title IX
264. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
265. The rape of Plaintiff Doe IV was a causal result of UT’s deliberate indifference and
policy decisions to create a hostile sexual environment. UT consciously disregarded the general and
specific warnings raised by Jenny Wright and Tim Rogers. As set forth above, UT is liable for the
rape itself under the before theory of liability under Title IX for its direct actions in creating and
maintaining a hostile sexual environment. UT consciously disregarded the known risks posed by the
specific group of students by refusing to investigate or pursue disciplinary action in the April 2013
rape that occurred in Vol Hall at the direct instruction of its administrators, specifically including
Chancellor Cheek. UT’s deliberate decisions not to investigate that incident, implement remedial
measures required by Title IX or otherwise take effective action to remedy the hostile environment,
thereby allowing this same group of players to continue the pattern of providing alcohol to minors,
violent and discriminatory behavior including sexual assault, the coordinated collaboration of
statements in the wake of allegations and retaliation against victims and witnesses UT resulted in the
assault against Plaintiff.
266. UT is also liable under the after theory of liability under Title IX.
267. UT’s responses to the harassment were clearly unreasonable in light of the known
circumstances.
268. The discrimination, consisting of Johnson and Williams’ rape of Plaintiff Doe IV, the
risks to Plaintiff Doe IV’s safety, the acts and omissions by members of UT’s administration and

55 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 55 of 64 PageID #: 2114

 athletic department in violation of Title IX including the failure to take remedial action was so
severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it barred Plaintiff Doe IV’s access to educational
opportunities and benefits.
269. Plaintiff was subjected to the discrimination because of the University’s deliberate
indifference to known acts of harassment, sexual violence, discrimination and retaliation, including,
without limitation:
a. UT’s deliberate decisions and actions, by and through its coaches and administrators,
to interfere in the investigation in the wake of Plaintiff’s allegations so as to mitigate any
negative effect on its football season and the athletic department;
b. UT’s deliberate decisions not to take interim measures or action to remedy the
effects of the hostile environment required by Title IX during the investigation such as: to take
effective measures to prevent contact between the rapists and witnesses to the Title IX
investigation; to make any assurances to the victims and/or witnesses to the Title IX
investigation that retaliation would not be tolerated; and, to take any action whatsoever
against persons under its control (football players and coaches) who threatened and assaulted
witnesses to the investigation and instead allowing said persons to continue playing and
coaching football in direct contradiction of its own policies and Title IX;
c. The provision or facilitation of access to special counsel by UT;
d. UT’s deliberate decision to refrain from imposing any discipline within the required
timeframe under Title IX and its own policies under the guise of complying with the Tennessee
Uniform Administrative Procedures Act with full knowledge that neither Johnson nor
Williams are likely to attend or participate in any hearing—thereby subjecting Plaintiff Doe
IV not only to unnecessary delay, but also additional and unnecessary interviews and an
unnecessary hearing during which she has been, and will be in the future, forced to relive her
rape while potentially being subjected to offensive and needless examination;
e. UT’s deliberate decision to allow Johnson and Williams to remain on campus and
on scholarship throughout the Fall, 2014 (Johnson) and Spring, 2015 (Williams) semester(s);
f. UT’s deliberate decisions to publicly support, through the statements and actions of
its administrators (including Chancellor Cheek) and football coaches, the men who raped

56 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 56 of 64 PageID #: 2115

 Plaintiff; and,
g. UT’s deliberate decisions to publicly support, through the statements and actions of
the athletic department and football coaches, the men known to have threatened and assaulted
witnesses to the Title IX investigation.
h. UT and the athletics department failure to train and educate their players to prevent
and remedy a known hostile environment toward women that existed within the athletic
program.
270. Had UT not been deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s harassment and discrimination
and, further, had UT not taken self-serving action to protect the interests of its athletic department,
football program, coaches and players and instead complied with its own policies and federal law by
acknowledging Plaintiff’s rape and employing a disciplinary process that was prompt and equitable,
Williams, Johnson and the football players and coaches that interfered with the investigation
including football players Marlin Lane, Geraldo Orta and Curt Maggitt, would have been removed
as a threat and Plaintiff would have retained her scholarship and be representing the University
through athletics while pursuing her degree. Instead, Plaintiff was forced to leave campus, set back
years from her academic track (incurring significant costs in the process) and undergo further
emotional trauma while the football players were praised by members of the athletic department,
allowed to remain in school on scholarship and, as to Orta and Maggitt, continue playing collegiate
sports (on scholarship) ---suffering no consequences whatsoever.
Plaintiff Doe V’s Claims Under Title IX
271. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
272. UT is liable under the before theory of liability because UT had actual knowledge of
the involvement of Orta and Lane as persons responsible for a prior sexual assault (in April of 2013)
and a severely hostile sexual environment including post-assault communications with the victim in
an effort to dissuade her from pursing the complaint. UT administrators and its athletic department,
including Coach Jones, had specific knowledge of these facts as set forth in the police report. As set
forth above, Orta and Lane violently retaliated against a material witness to the Doe IV rape (i.e.
Drae Bowles) and this violent act of retaliation was witnessed by Jane Doe V.
273. UT consciously disregarded the general and specific warnings raised by Jenny Wright
and Tim Rogers. UT consciously disregarded the known risks posed by this specific group of students
57 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 57 of 64 PageID #: 2116

 by refusing to investigate or pursue disciplinary action in the April 2013 rape that occurred in Vol
Hall at the direct instruction of its administrators, specifically including Chancellor Cheek. UT’s
deliberate decisions not to investigate that incident, implement remedial measures required by Title
IX or otherwise take effective action to remedy the hostile environment, thereby allowing this same
group of players to continue the pattern of providing alcohol to minors, violent and discriminatory
behavior including sexual assault, the coordinated collaboration of statements in the wake of
allegations and retaliation against victims and witnesses UT resulted in the assault against Plaintiff
and UT is therefore liable for sexual discrimination and retaliation to Plaintiff Doe V under the
before theory of liability under Title IX for its direct actions in creating and maintaining a hostile
sexual environment.
274. UT is also liable under the after theory of liability under Title IX.
275. UT’s responses to the harassment were clearly unreasonable in light of the known
circumstances.
276. The discrimination, consisting of Maggitt and Johnson’s post-assault communications
and the violent retaliatory acts of UT football players including Orta, Lane and Maggitt posed risks
to Plaintiff Doe V’s safety. The acts and omissions by members of UT’s administration and athletic
department in violation of Title IX including the failure to take remedial action was so severe,
pervasive, and objectively offensive that it barred Plaintiff Doe V’s access to educational
opportunities and benefits.
277. Plaintiff was subjected to discrimination because of the University’s deliberate
indifference to known acts of harassment, sexual violence, discrimination and retaliation, including,
without limitation:
a. UT’s deliberate decisions and actions, by and through its coaches and administrators,
to interfere in the investigation so as to mitigate any negative effect on its football season and
the athletic department;
b. UT’s deliberate decisions not to take interim measures or action to remedy the
effects of the hostile environment required by Title IX during the investigation such as: to take
effective measures to prevent contact between the rapists and witnesses to the Title IX
investigation, to make any assurances to the victims and/or witnesses to the Title IX
investigation that retaliation would not be tolerated, to take any action whatsoever against
58 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 58 of 64 PageID #: 2117

 persons under its control (football players and coaches) who threatened and assaulted
witnesses to the investigation and instead allowing said persons to continue playing and
coaching football in direct contradiction of its own policies and Title IX;
c. The provision or facilitation of access to special counsel by UT;
d. UT’s deliberate decision to refrain from imposing any discipline within the required
timeframe under Title IX and its own policies under the guise of complying with the Tennessee
Uniform Administrative Procedures Act with full knowledge that neither Johnson nor
Williams are likely to attend or participate in any hearing—thereby unnecessarily delaying the
process;
e. UT’s deliberate decision to allow Johnson and Williams to remain on campus and
on scholarship throughout the Fall, 2014 (Johnson) and Spring, 2015 (Williams) semester(s);
i.

UT’s deliberate decisions to publicly support, through the statements and actions of

the athletic department and football coaches, the men known to have threatened and assaulted
witnesses to the Title IX investigation;
j.

UT and the athletics department failure to train and educate their players to prevent

and remedy a known hostile environment toward women that existed within the athletic
program.
k. UT’s deliberate indifference to allegations of retaliation against Plaintiff Doe V for
her participation in a Title IX sexual assault investigation, which indifference makes UT a
party to the retaliation itself.
278. Had UT not been deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s harassment and discrimination
and, further, had UT not taken self-serving action to protect the interests of its athletic department,
football program, coaches and players and instead complied with its own policies and federal law by
employing a disciplinary process that was prompt and equitable, Williams, Johnson and the football
players and coaches that interfered with the investigation including football players Marlin Lane,
Geraldo Orta and Curt Maggitt, would have been removed as a threat and Plaintiff would have
retained her scholarship and be representing the University through athletics while pursuing her
degree. Instead, Plaintiff was forced to leave campus, set back years from her academic track
(incurring significant costs in the process) and undergo further emotional trauma while the football

59 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 59 of 64 PageID #: 2118

 players were praised by members of the athletic department, allowed to remain in school on
scholarship and, as to Lane, Orta and Maggitt, continue playing collegiate sports (on scholarship) --suffering no consequences whatsoever.
Plaintiff Doe VI’s Claims Under Title IX
279. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
280. Plaintiff Doe II pleads the “erroneous outcome” doctrine under Title IX, set forth in
Yusuf v. Vassar College, 35 F.3d 709 (2nd Cir. 1994), as to UT’s flawed investigation into the sexual
assault of Doe VI.
281. The rape of Plaintiff Doe VI was a causal result of UT’s deliberate indifference and
policy decisions to create a hostile sexual environment. UT consciously disregarded the general and
specific warnings raised by Jenny Wright and Tim Rogers. UT consciously disregarded the known
risks posed by the specific group of students by refusing to investigate or pursue disciplinary action
in the April 2013 rape that occurred in Vol Hall at the direct instruction of its administrators,
specifically including Chancellor Cheek. UT’s deliberate decisions not to investigate that incident,
implement remedial measures required by Title IX or otherwise take effective action to remedy the
hostile environment, thereby allowing football players to continue the pattern of violent and
discriminatory behavior including sexual assault as well as the coordinated collaboration of
statements in the wake of allegations and retaliation against victims and witnesses resulted in the
assault against Plaintiff. UT is therefore liable for the rape itself under the before theory of liability
under Title IX for its direct actions in creating and maintaining a hostile sexual environment.
282. UT is also liable under the after theory of liability under Title IX.
283. UT’s responses to the harassment were clearly unreasonable in light of the known
circumstances.
284. The discrimination, consisting of Jones’ rape of Plaintiff Doe VI, the risks to Plaintiff
Doe VI’s safety, the acts and omissions by members of UT’s administration and athletic department
in violation of Title IX including the failure to take remedial action was so severe, pervasive, and
objectively offensive that it barred Plaintiff Doe VI’s access to educational opportunities and
benefits.
285. Plaintiff was subjected to the discrimination because of the University’s deliberate

60 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 60 of 64 PageID #: 2119

 indifference to known acts of harassment, sexual violence, discrimination and retaliation, including,
without limitation:
a. UT’s deliberate decisions and actions, by and through its coaches and administrators,
to interfere in the investigation in the wake of Plaintiff’s allegations so as to mitigate any
negative affect on its football season and the athletic department;
b. UT’s deliberate decisions not to take interim measures or action to remedy the
effects of the hostile environment required by Title IX during the investigation such as: to take
effective measures to prevent contact between the rapist and witnesses to the Title IX
investigation, to make any assurances to the victims and/or witnesses to the Title IX
investigation that retaliation would not be tolerated, to take any action whatsoever against
persons under its control (football players) who threatened and/or attempted to dissuade
Plaintiff and other witnesses to the investigation and instead allowing said persons to continue
this pattern and remain in school on scholarship in direct contradiction of its own policies and
Title IX;
c. UT’s deliberate decision to refrain from imposing any discipline and prompt
resolution within the required timeframe under Title IX and its own policies—thereby
subjecting Plaintiff Doe VI to unnecessary delay;
d. UT’s deliberate decision to allow Jones and the men (other football players) known
to have threatened and assaulted witnesses to the Title IX investigation to remain on campus
and on scholarship throughout the Spring, 2015 semester;
e. UT’s deliberate decisions to publicly support, through the statements and actions of
its administration, the athletic department and football coaches, Riyahd Jones and the men
(other football players) known to have threatened and assaulted witnesses to the Title IX
investigation; and,
f. UT’s deliberate decisions in relying on the failure of witnesses to participate who
were known to have been contacted by football players as the primary basis for the outcome
of its investigation.
g. UT and the athletics department failure to train and educate their players to prevent
and remedy a known hostile environment toward women that existed within the athletic

61 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 61 of 64 PageID #: 2120

 program.
285. Had UT not been deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s harassment and discrimination
and, further, had UT not taken self-serving action to protect the interests of its athletic department,
football program, coaches and players and instead complied with its own policies and federal law by
acknowledging Plaintiff’s rape and employing a disciplinary process that was prompt and equitable,
Jones and the football players and coaches that interfered with the investigation would have been
removed as a threat and Plaintiff would have remained in school and pursuing her degree. Instead,
Plaintiff was forced to leave campus, forced to deviate from her academic track (incurring significant
costs in the process) and undergo further emotional trauma while the football players were praised
by members of the athletic department, allowed to remain in school on scholarship and effectuate a
transfer (as to Jones) and, as to others, continue playing collegiate sports at UT (on scholarship) --suffering no consequences whatsoever.

62 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 62 of 64 PageID #: 2121

 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows:
a. Defendant be served with process and answer herein;
b. An award of damages in an amount to be established at trial, including, without limitation,
reimbursement and prepayment for all of Plaintiffs’ tuition or related expenses; payment
of Plaintiffs’ expenses incurred as a consequence of the sexual assault; damages for
deprivation of equal access to the educational benefits and opportunities provided by UT;
and damages for past, present, and future emotional pain and suffering, ongoing and
severe mental anguish, and loss of past, present, and future enjoyment of life;
c. An Order enjoining UT, along with all of its agents, employees, and those acting in concert
therewith, from unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex, including the failure to
address, prevent, and/or remedy sexual harassment;
d. Injunctive relief requiring UT to redress its violations of Title IX including: 1) instituting,
with the assistance of outside experts, and enforcing a comprehensive sexual harassment
policy, including procedures for effective reporting of sexual harassment incidents, an
effective and immediate crisis response, and an expanded victim assistance and protection
program; 2) adopting a real “zero tolerance policy” under which there will be expedited
proceedings and punishment proportional to the offense for violation of sexual
harassment policies; 3) providing for an annual, independent review by the UT Board of
Trustees, with the participation of outside reviewers, of Athletic Department compliance
with the sexual harassment and recruiting policies and any other relief to be determined
at trial requiring UT to comply with federal law under Title IX; and 4) enjoining UT from
utilizing the TUAPA administrative process in sexual assault investigations.
e. Attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b);
f.

For the court costs of trying this action;

g. For a jury to hear this cause of action;
h. For costs to be taxed to the Defendant;
i.

For such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper; and,

j.

For pre- and post-judgment interest.

63 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 63 of 64 PageID #: 2122

 k. Plaintiffs respectfully reserve the right to amend this Complaint to conform to the
evidence.
Respectfully submitted this 8th day of February, 2016.
DAVID RANDOLPH SMITH & ASSOCIATES
/s/ David Randolph Smith
David Randolph Smith, TN BPR#011905
Dominick R. Smith, TN BPR # 028783
W. Lyon Chadwick, TN BPR # 029599
Christopher W. Smith, TN BPR #034450
DAVID RANDOLPH SMITH & ASSOCIATES
1913 21st Avenue South
Nashville, Tennessee 37212
(615)742-1775 phone
(615)742-1223 fax
drs@drslawfirm.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

64 of 64

Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 71 Filed 02/09/16 Page 64 of 64 PageID #: 2123