8/10/2019 FSU Response to Lawsuit
1/2
RESPONSE FROM FSU PRESIDENT JOHN THRASHER:
Florida State University is disappointed to learn of this
lawsuit. The Universityhas not yet been served and will need time
to review the complaint fully before
we respond in detail.
After a year of selective news leaks and distorted coverage,
Florida State looksforward to addressing these meritless
allegations in court. Evidence will showthat through its
confidential Victim Advocate Program, FSU did everything
theplaintiff asked for and that the assertions FSU shirked its
Title IX obligationsare false.
In all, the University asked the plaintiff or her attorneys at
least nine times overnearly 20 months to give a statement that
would enable a Title IX investigation.
FSU did not ignore the complainant or its obligations under
Title IX.
FSUs handling of this matter was driven by the plaintiffs
deliberate andinformed choice on how to proceed, not by
Athletics.
The Universitys victim advocates were at the plaintiff's side
within hours of theencounter and continued meeting with or
contacting her or her representativesat least 30 times over the
ensuing year. Besides offering emotional support andarranging
numerous academic accommodations on her behalf, they informedthe
plaintiff and her attorney five times about the right to pursue a
studentdisciplinary action. The first was in December 2012--before
the AthleticsDepartment ever became aware of the allegation--and
the last was in December2013.
Then, after the plaintiff hired new attorneys, the University
extended theinvitation four more times before her attorney finally
consented to a Title IXinterview in early August, after making FSU
wait because they were unavailablein the summer months.
The University went to great lengths to protect the rights and
integrity of thestudent conduct code process. It compiled more than
1,000 pages ofdocuments and turned the matter over to a former
Florida State SupremeCourt judge, who was briefed on all procedures
and rules. He held a two-dayhearing, heard from the plaintiff, the
respondent and 10 witnesses beforereleasing his decision far
earlier than the mandatory deadline of January 5.
