MSU Student’s Sexual Abuse Claim at the Olin Health Center Highlights Ongoing Issues With MSU’s Title IX Process After Larry Nassar Scandal

In approximately February 2022, Elizabeth, a student at Michigan State University (MSU), filed a claim with the university’s Title IX office, alleging a male healthcare provider at the Olin Health Center had sexually assaulted her during a medical exam under the guise of legitimate medical treatment. Unbeknownst to her, she was not the only student to report assaults by this same healthcare provider. Nearly three years later, she’s unsure she made the right decision to go through MSU’s Title IX process.

The Department of Education is now investigating MSU for allegedly mishandling the reports of sexual assault by this healthcare provider and discriminating against Elizabeth for reporting the healthcare provider. Since the Larry Nassar scandal of 2016, MSU has insisted that its handling of sexual abuse claims has been revamped and improved, but that may not be the case. 

The Alleged Assault at MSU’s Olin Health Center and Ensuing Title IX Investigation

Elizabeth reported that a male healthcare provider at MSU’s Olin Health Center in East Lansing, MI, touched her and hugged her in a way she “felt intentionally affectionate, not treatment-oriented,” leading her to question whether it was appropriate. She also described a moment of arousal she experienced during her examination, which added to her feeling that something inappropriate happened during her exam. Finally, she reported a series of comments made by the provider that caused her to feel that something was wrong. For example, when she thought the “treatment” was over and she began to stand, the provider told her, “You can get up when I say you can get up.” 

After receiving the complaint from Elizabeth, MSU’s Title IX office alerted the healthcare provider and solicited his response to the allegations. He denied the allegations, arguing it “was a normal treatment session.” The healthcare provider stated he did not actually recall the appointment but that if what was alleged did occur, it could all be explained away. The provider stated that he “had never before…. been accused of behaving inappropriately toward a patient.” However, that was false. Police reports revealed that he was, in fact, accused of assaulting another patient two years prior.

After the evidence-gathering phase of the Title IX process, an MSU investigator concluded that if Elizabeth’s allegation were true, the conduct would meet the university’s definitions of sexual harassment and non-consensual sexual conduct. That said, the investigator determined that Elizabeth’s credibility was “at issue,” so the investigator recommended a live hearing and cross-examination. At the live hearing, Elizabeth was questioned for over three hours. In a detailed article by The State News following their own investigation, they reported the details of the grueling hearing as follows:

“Throughout the questioning, Elizabeth’s adviser voiced concerns about the lengthy, aggressive questioning via Microsoft Teams Messages. “This is not how we treat individuals in this process,” Elizabeth’s adviser said in one of the messages, which were included in the case file. “[T]his is a concern going forward.”

In the messages, she noted that the practitioner’s adviser was being “highly antagonistic,” making “eye rolls after almost every question” and negative comments when Elizabeth opted not to answer certain probing questions.

Despite her adviser’s concerns, the hearing officer allowed the abrasive questioning to continue. “I felt like I was in the room with two additional bullies,” Elizabeth said of the hearing officer and practitioner’s adviser. “These lawyers come in and treat it like a court hearing.”

When the hearing officer questioned her for 82 minutes, Elizabeth said she asked herself: “Is she just unprepared or trying to get back at me? I wondered if it was vindictive,” she said.

The practitioner was also questioned at the hearing, though not for as long. During his portion, he repeated his defense: He did not recall details of the appointment but believes everything described was part of legitimate treatment.”

After this hearing, it was determined that there was no evidence to support a finding that the healthcare provider engaged in non-consensual touching because Elizabeth was not credible. To reach that conclusion, it was noted that it would be impossible for this to have happened without someone else noticing, despite one witness saying they were with another patient and not paying attention. The decision also disputed Elizabeth’s allegation that the healthcare provider made sexually harassing comments, finding that while Elizabeth may have been “subjectively” offended, those comments would not have been offensive to an objective person.

A Previous Assault by the Same Healthcare Provider

In January 2020, two years before Elizabeth’s incident, another female patient made similar allegations of assault against the same MSU healthcare provider. This student reported her alleged assault to the police and decided not to go through the Title IX process. This student reported that she began to question the treatment she was receiving when she realized the male healthcare provider would vary the forcefulness and nature of his touch depending on whether others were in the room. The police interviewed the healthcare provider, who denied the allegations.   

The police hired an outside expert to review the allegations. The expert concluded that the actions could be part of legitimate medical treatment but that something was amiss if the patient was left feeling like the healthcare provider was getting sexually gratified from the treatment. The expert concluded there may have been a “miscommunication failure.” The police asked the same expert to review Elizabeth’s case years later. This time, the expert concluded her experience could have also been a communication failure, but he could not “rule out possible inappropriate behavior or actions” because there was not a good explanation as to Elizabeth’s description of arousal to the treatment.

No criminal charges were brought in either case.

The Department of Education Starts Investigations Into MSU’s Handling of Title IX Complaints

The Department of Education has opened an investigation into MSU for possibly mishandling Elizabeth’s Title IX allegations. It is also investigating six other complaints about MSU’s handling of other Title IX cases. The Department of Education is also investigating whether Elizabeth’s education at MSU was hindered in retaliation for her reporting of the alleged assault.

In the last decade, MSU has reached two major agreements with the Department of Education after similar investigations. Most recently, in 2019, MSU agreed to pay a $4.5 million fine after an investigation found that MSU repeatedly ignored student reports of Larry Nassar’s abuse. The 2019 agreement also required MSU to create new information-sharing policies. MSU paid another $3 million fine this year for failing to follow through on some of the agreed reforms.

The choice to file a Title IX claim is one that countless student survivors across the U.S. face. And according to statistics from the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, it’s one that a staggering 90% of survivors decide against. Shame, guilt, victim-blaming, uncertainty, and a fear of not being believed all play a role in their reluctance. However, for many students—such as Elizabeth—the reporting process itself makes them hesitate.

Elizabeth’s Case Highlights Ongoing Problems With Title IX Reporting

MSU’s claims that they had improved their Title IX reporting system prompted Elizabeth to come forward with her story. However, her experience was far from the justice she expected. Instead of being treated like a survivor of a potential crime, she soon felt like the target of an inquisition.

Regrettably, she is not alone. Many students who seek protection from Title IX offices find themselves in similar positions. Criticisms of the Title IX process include:

• A lack of proper training for Title IX investigators.
• Inconsistent processes between universities.
• Inconsistent application of the law between universities.
• Insufficient policies.
• Confidentiality issues.
• Lengthy interrogations for survivors.
• Aggressive interview tactics.
• Prejudicial investigators and expert witnesses.
• Victim-blaming.
• Over-reaching use of private medical records.
• Unclear or outdated definitions of sexual misconduct.
• Mishandling cases.
• Retaliation.

Ironically, not only do these shortcomings retraumatize survivors, but many cases would simply fall apart without the survivor’s drive for justice.

Universities Rarely Pursue Allegations Without Student Support / Investigations

Typically, if someone commits a crime against you, reporting it to the authorities is all you must do to pursue justice. The police take it from there, opening their investigation and seeking justice for you. You might need to give a statement or follow-up interview, but for the most part, it’s not your job to investigate. Unfortunately, this isn’t the case with Title IX.  

Since Title IX is not an official legal process, universities are not required to follow standard rules of criminal procedure. This means survivors of sexual assault and misconduct are often responsible for getting their own results. Take Elizabeth, for example. Not only did she have to report the incident, but she also had to detail her statement, collect supporting evidence, and argue her case, all while enduring extensive pushback from poorly trained Title IX investigators. Without her efforts, the case would have died.

While universities can technically open a case without student participation, it rarely happens. And if a case goes poorly, survivors have few options for relief. Appealing to federal authority is typically the only way to check a school’s Title IX power.

Do You Need To File a Title IX Report for Sexual Misconduct?

No, the Title IX process is voluntary. But what you should do is immediately report your assault to the police. In addition to the criminal process, you also have the right to seek civil justice against the abuser and the abuser’s employer. While a civil case cannot put the offender behind bars, it can help the survivor obtain justice, including financial compensation, so the survivor can get the care and treatment they need to cope with the abuse they suffered.

At Sommers Schwartz, Lisa Esser-Weidenfeller is committed to fighting for your rights. Ms. Esser-Weidenfeller has successfully brought civil cases against high-profile predators such as Dr. Larry Nassar—Michigan State University and USAG team physician—and Robert Anderson, who sexually abused students, athletes, and other patients for over 35 years at the University of Michigan.

If you were sexually abused by a physician at MSU’s Olin Health Center or another university physician, we want to hear from you. Contact Lisa so she can help you pursue justice with the compassion and sensitivity your story deserves.