The saga between Mel Tucker and Michigan State University continues as attorneys for the suspended football coach fired back in a 25-page memo saying they do not have cause to fire him.
The memo sent to MSU Monday (Sept. 25) shows Tucker’s attorney explaining why he can’t be fired for the allegations of sexual harassment toward him.
It comes just a week after MSU notified Tucker that it would move forward with his firing.
When MSU notified Tucker of its intent to terminate his contract, they gave him seven days to explain why that should not occur. On the seventh day, Tucker’s legal team responded in 25 pages.
Tucker’s team says that action would be unjust. They explain why in five points over 25 pages, but they take issue with the notice itself, saying the university adopted allegations made by Brenda Tracy without a meaningful review of the facts.
Tracy, a rape survivor and advocate against sexual violence, says her professional relationship with the coach turned into something else when he touched himself and made sexual comments on a phone call.
Attorneys for Tucker say he did not breach his contract, nor did he engage in unprofessional, unethical behavior, adding there was mutual flirting between the two, which included that instance of consensual phone sex.
They say Tucker fully cooperated, telling the truth in the investigation that followed.
Tucker’s attorneys said MSU failed to maintain the confidentiality of the investigation and that “Tucker is just the fall guy for the university’s negligence and malfeasance, the long history of which includes and predates the (Larry) Nassar matter, but which unfortunately has continued and tainted the university’s handling of this matter.”
Tucker’s attorneys said the investigation was flawed, unfair, and biased and that the notice of intent to fire last week was made off of information the university was aware of at least seven months ago.
One final step in this process is a formal hearing set to take place next Thursday (Oct. 5). Tucker’s attorneys say the university shouldn’t be moving to terminate him before that hearing.
