John Doe MC-13 V. UM 1St Am
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Case 2:20-cv-10614-VAR-EAS ECF No. 32 filed 09/14/20 PageID.862 Page 1 of 92 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION JOHN DOE MC-13, Case No. 2:20-cv-10614 Plaintiff, Hon. Victoria A. Roberts vs. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, Stafford THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN (official capacity only), Jointly and Severally, Defendants. Michael A. Cox (P43039) Jackie J. Cook (P68781) THE MIKE COX LAW FIRM, PLLC Attorneys for Plaintiff 17430 Laurel Park Dr. N., Ste. 120E Livonia, MI 48152 734.591.4002 [email protected] David J. Shea (P41399) Ashley D. Shea (P82471) SHEA LAW FIRM PLLC Attorneys for Plaintiff 26100 American Dr., Ste. 200 Southfield, MI 48034 248.354.0224 [email protected] FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND NOW COMES Plaintiff, John Doe MC-13, by and through his attorneys, Michael A. Cox, Jackie Cook and The Mike Cox Law Firm, PLLC, as well as David 1 Case 2:20-cv-10614-VAR-EAS ECF No. 32 filed 09/14/20 PageID.863 Page 2 of 92 J. Shea, Ashley D. Shea and Shea Law Firm PLLC, and for his Complaint against The University of Michigan (“UM”) and the Regents of the University of Michigan (“Regents”), collectively referred to as “Defendants,” states as follows: I. INTRODUCTION 1. While employed as a physician by UM from the early 1960s until 2003, Dr. Robert Anderson (“Anderson” or “Dr. Anderson”) used his position to sexually assault university students, many of whom were athletes. 2. As early as 1968, and on information and belief even earlier, UM received complaints from male students about Anderson sexually assaulting them during putative medical examinations. 3. As early as 1969, and on information and belief even earlier, UM received complaints from male student-athletes about Anderson sexually assaulting them during putative medical examinations. 4. In 1979, UM initially fired Anderson from his position as University Health Services (“UHS”) Director after receiving repeated complaints that Anderson was sexually assaulting male students during medical examinations on campus, an allegation Anderson did not deny. 5. However, UM overrode the decision to terminate Anderson, and allowed Anderson to stay at UHS as a “senior physician” where he continued to see and sexually assault male students and/or student-athletes before moving Anderson 2 Case 2:20-cv-10614-VAR-EAS ECF No. 32 filed 09/14/20 PageID.864 Page 3 of 92 to the position of full-time Athletic Department physician in 1981, where predictably Anderson continued sexually assaulting male student athletes, most of whom were attending UM on athletic scholarships, or with grants-in-aid, or as members of various sports teams, including among others, football, wrestling, hockey, gymnastics, basketball, baseball, cheerleading, and track and cross country teams, until he retired in 2003. 6. To UM, the Athletic Department became the perfect place to hide Anderson’s past, present, and future sexual abuse of young men from public disclosure. Student-athletes were a vulnerable population because they often attended college only as a result of UM’s grant of a full or partial athletic scholarship requiring them to play sports under the intense microscope of an esteemed Big 10 athletic department which urged them always to conduct themselves, above all else, as “Michigan Men”. The fact Anderson was given free rein to abuse hundreds – perhaps thousands – of male student-athletes with impunity was, in the end, a calculated risk worth taking by Defendants for the greater good of UM. 7. UM managed to keep its knowledge of Anderson’s sexually predatory acts protected from public disclosure, and more importantly, disclosure to UM students and student athletes, through a calculated campaign of artifice and continued misrepresentations, with both affirmative and omissive acts and misstatements to, among others, the public, the UM university community, 3 Case 2:20-cv-10614-VAR-EAS ECF No. 32 filed 09/14/20 PageID.865 Page 4 of 92 unknowing and unwitting coaches and trainers, and students and student athletes to fraudulently conceal Anderson’s predatory acts in an intentional and deliberately indifferent manner. 8. While a UM undergraduate student, Plaintiff participated on an athletic team as a team manager. 9. UM is responsible for Plaintiff’s damages stemming from Anderson’s sexual assaults on UM’s campus, as UM placed vulnerable student athletes like Plaintiff in Anderson’s care despite knowing he was a sexual predator. 10. This is a civil action against UM for declaratory, injunctive, equitable, and monetary relief for injuries sustained by Plaintiff as a result of the acts, conduct, and omissions of Defendants in their official capacity, and their respective employees, representatives, and agents relating to sexual assault, abuse, molestation, and nonconsensual sexual touching and harassment by Anderson against Plaintiff while a UM student. 11. Plaintiff files this case anonymously because of the extremely sensitive nature of the case as Plaintiff was a victim of sexual assault, and the suit will require disclosure of information “of the utmost intimacy”; Plaintiff is therefore entitled to protect his identity in this public filing by not disclosing his name. Doe v. Porter, 370 F.3d 558, 560 (6th Cir., 2004), citing Doe v. Stegall, 653 F.2d 180, 185–86 (5th Cir., 1981). See also, Case 2:20-cv-10568-VAR-EAS, ECF No. 73, filed 07/09/20. 4 Case 2:20-cv-10614-VAR-EAS ECF No. 32 filed 09/14/20 PageID.866 Page 5 of 92 John Doe MC-1’s name and his Identifying Information including dates of attendance at UM has been provided to the Defendants pursuant to ¶ 10 of ECF No. 73, “Protective Order”. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 12. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this is a civil action arising from the Constitution, laws and treaties of the United States, including but not limited to, Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq., and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 13. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343 because this is a civil action authorized by law brought by a person to redress the deprivation, under color of a State Law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of a right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by an Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States, and a civil action to recover damages or to secure equitable relief under an Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights. 14. The claims are cognizable under the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., and under Michigan Law. 15. The amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of 5 Case 2:20-cv-10614-VAR-EAS ECF No. 32 filed 09/14/20 PageID.867 Page 6 of 92 $75,000.00. 16. The acts and events giving rise to this lawsuit occurred in Washtenaw County, Michigan which sits in the Southern Division of the Eastern District of Michigan. 17. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), because the acts and events giving rise to the claims occurred in this judicial district. 18. Plaintiff’s Complaint is timely filed within the applicable statutes of limitations. III. PARTIES 19. Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Michigan. 20. UM is a public university organized and existing under the laws of the State of Michigan. 21. UM receives federal financial assistance and is therefore, among other reasons, subject to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). 22. The Regents of the University of Michigan is a body corporate, with the right to be sued, vested with the government of the university. M.C.L. § 390.3 and 390.4. 23. Defendants are not immune from suit under the Governmental Tort 6 Case 2:20-cv-10614-VAR-EAS ECF No. 32 filed 09/14/20 PageID.868 Page 7 of 92 Liability Act, M.C.L. § 691.1401, et seq., or any other statute. IV. COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 24. From the early 1960s until 2003, Anderson was a physician employed by UM treating students on UM’s Ann Arbor campus, during which time UM gave Anderson unfettered access to young college students, including young male athletes. 25. It was sometime soon after beginning employment with UM that, according to Ambassador Ron Weiser, the current chair of the UM Regents, Anderson sexually abused Ambassador Weiser while Weiser was a freshman wrestler at UM in 1963. 26. In a March 2020 Detroit News article, Weiser reported he was a “survivor” who had been “abused” by Dr. Anderson and urged other survivors like the Plaintiff to tell their stories. 27. In the same article, Weiser shared that he could not recall how many times he saw Anderson for medical care because he continued seeing Anderson until, at least, 1967 when Weiser was a graduate student. “Finley: UM regent, donor Ron Weiser says he was molested by doctor, too”, The Detroit News, 03/12/2020. 28. This is because, as he told Nolan Finley in an accompanying video interview, Weiser did not consider it (Anderson’s acts during the medical examinations of Weiser) sexual assault when it happened. 7 Case 2:20-cv-10614-VAR-EAS ECF No.