U.S.

Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division

SAS:WMP:VRP:ASV:MA:ZZ
DJ 169-35-107 U.S. Mail: 4 Constitution Square
150 M Street NE
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 305-3058
Email: Aria.Vaughan@usdoj.gov

March 18, 2024

Via Electronic Mail

Dr. Valerie Sheares Ashby
President
University of Maryland, Baltimore County
1000 Hilltop Circle
Baltimore, MD 21250

Re: Title IX Investigation of University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Dear President Sheares Ashby:

We write regarding the U.S. Department of Justice’s (the Department) investigation into
University of Maryland, Baltimore County (the University) under Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972 (Title IX) as amended, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq., and the Department’s
implementing regulations, 28 C.F.R. pt. 54, which prohibit sex discrimination in education
programs or activities of recipients of federal financial assistance. The Department opened its
initial investigation in November 2020, in response to allegations that the University failed to
comply with its obligations under Title IX to respond to reports of student sexual assault. During
the course of that review, the Department received allegations that a former head coach of the
University’s men’s and women’s Swimming and Diving Team, Chad Cradock (the Head Coach),
had sexually abused and discriminated against those student-athletes, and that the University knew
of this sex discrimination but did not respond adequately. The Department expanded its
investigation to include these allegations.

As described in detail below, the Department determined that the University did not
comply with its Title IX obligations in its response to known allegations of sex discrimination in
its Athletics Department. In particular, our investigation revealed that the University failed to
sufficiently oversee its Athletics Department and did not devote adequate resources to its Title IX
compliance efforts, which enabled the Head Coach to engage in sex-based harassment, including
unwanted sexual touching of male student-athletes, as well as sex discrimination against female
student-athletes, on an ongoing basis for years. From approximately 2015 to 2020, the University
was on notice of allegations that these student-athletes had been subjected to a hostile environment
based on sex but failed to address it adequately. As a result, many student-athletes were subjected
to sex discrimination, including unwanted sexual touching and other sexual harassment, which
they understood to be a condition for participating in University athletics. Although the Head
Coach was placed on leave in October 2020, and later died in March 2021, the findings described
in this letter show University-wide failures well beyond the conduct of this coach that left student-
athletes vulnerable to ongoing sexual harassment. As a result, the Department has concluded that
the University must take affirmative steps to remedy these failures and come into compliance with
Title IX.

The Department’s conclusions are based on an investigation that included extensive

outreach, four on-campus visits, and review of nearly 200,000 pages of documents, including over
100,000 pages related to allegations of sex discrimination within the men’s and women’s
Swimming and Diving Team. The Department spoke with former and current students, University
administrators, Athletics Department staff, and others, for a total of 70 interviews. We appreciate
the University’s cooperation throughout the course of the investigation.

Although the Department received information about sex discrimination in other facets of
the University’s programs and activities, our investigation primarily focused on allegations of sex
discrimination that occurred under the Head Coach, both because of the gravity of the alleged
abuse, and because of the underlying institutional failures at issue, which implicate the
University’s ability to prevent and respond to other sex discrimination. We believe that these
investigative findings and proposed remedies will benefit all student-athletes and the University at
large. The Department acknowledges the bravery of the many student-athletes who came forward
to share their stories of sexual abuse and sex discrimination.

I. Legal Standards

Title IX prohibits discrimination based on sex in education programs and activities that
receive federal financial assistance. 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. Sexual harassment is a form of sex
discrimination covered by Title IX. See, e.g., Davis v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629,
649–50 (1999); Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274, 281 (1998). Sexual
harassment can include unwelcome sexual touching, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct.
A school violates Title IX when it has notice of sexual harassment that creates a hostile educational
environment “and fails adequately to respond.” Gebser, 524 U.S. at 290; see also Davis, 526 U.S.
at 646–47; Jennings v. Univ. of N. Carolina, 482 F.3d 686, 695 (4th Cir. 2007).

“Discrimination under Title IX includes coach-on-student sexual harassment that creates a

hostile environment in a school sports program.” Jennings, 482 F.3d at 694 (citing Franklin v.
Gwinnett County Pub. Schs., 503 U.S. 60, 75 (1992)). Whether a hostile environment exists
“depends on a constellation of surrounding circumstances, expectations, and relationships . . .
including the positions and ages of the harasser and victim, whether the harassment was frequent,
severe, humiliating, or physically threatening, and whether it effectively deprived the victim of
educational opportunities or benefits.” Id. at 696 (citing Davis, 526 U.S. at 650–51; Harris v.
Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993)). Courts also may consider whether there is “a general
atmosphere of hostility toward those” of a particular sex on an athletic team to determine whether
a hostile environment based on sex exists. Id. Indeed, sexual harassment may create a hostile
educational environment for a single individual or for a group of students in the same class,
program, or larger unit. See Davis, 526 U.S. at 653 (holding a school district liable for harassment
of a single individual and acknowledging possible liability for failing to respond “to severe,
gender-based mistreatment played out on a ‘widespread level’ among students”). And where a

2
hostile environment based on sex exists for both men and women, liability is doubled, rather than
eliminated. See Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., Georgia, 140 S. Ct. 1731, 1741 (2020).

The Fourth Circuit has recognized that athletic coaches can exercise “tremendous power”
over student-athletes, “control[ling] everything: team membership, position, playing time, and
scholarship eligibility,” a dynamic that renders these students particularly vulnerable to abuse,
including sexual harassment. See Jennings, 482 F.3d at 696–97. Sexual harassment may also
occur when, in a team setting, a coach uses sex-specific language aimed to humiliate, ridicule, or
intimidate athletes; attempts to determine whether, with whom, and how often players have sex;
and makes sexually-charged comments about student-athletes’ body parts. See id. at 695–96
(citing Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 65 (1986); Ocheltree v. Scollon Prods.,
Inc., 335 F.3d 325, 331–32 (4th Cir. 2003)). While “Title IX is not a civility code” for college
athletics teams, a coach may not take “advantage of the informal team setting to cross the line and
engage in real sexual harassment that create[s] a hostile or abusive environment.” Id. at 698–
99. Student-on-student sexual harassment may also create the basis for institutional liability under
Title IX where a school, through an official who has authority to address the alleged harassment
and to institute corrective measures, had actual notice or knowledge of the alleged harassment but
fails to respond adequately. See Doe v. Fairfax Cnty. Sch. Bd., 1 F.4th 257, 263–64 (4th Cir. 2021)
(citing Davis, 526 U.S. at 646–52; Gebser, 524 U.S. at 290–92; Jennings, 482 F.3d at 695); see
also Posso v. Niagara Univ., 518 F. Supp. 3d 688, 696–97 (W.D.N.Y. 2021).

In sum, once on notice of allegations of conduct that may constitute sexual harassment in
one of its education programs or activities—including athletics—a school must respond adequately
to those allegations to ensure compliance with Title IX. Failure to investigate such conduct is an
inadequate response under Title IX, particularly when the sexual harassment persists. See Davis,
526 U.S. at 654.

II. Investigative Findings

The University has a Division I, nationally-recognized athletics program, which includes a

men’s and women’s Swimming and Diving Team. For nearly twenty years, one person served as
the head coach for the over four hundred student-athletes who participated on the Swimming and
Diving Team. This Head Coach also oversaw a youth swim club, various precollegiate swim
camps, and aquatics facilities open to University students and staff. During his tenure, the Head
Coach supervised between one and four assistant coaches at any given time, in addition to youth
club coaches.

The Head Coach’s ties to the University were decades in the making. A former University
student himself, the Head Coach once competed on the very team he would later coach. Under his
charge, the team grew enormously, both in size and revenue. By all accounts, the Head Coach was
adept at building and maintaining alumni relationships, which, in turn, supported fundraising. He
boasted close personal relationships with many high-ranking University officials and senior
administrators. Because of these relationships and his visibility, his image became synonymous
with the University itself: he earned the nickname, “Mr. UMBC.”

As a winning coach, the Head Coach was a popular and well-respected member of the
University community. With this reputation, the Head Coach enjoyed deference despite behaviors

3
that should have prompted the University to scrutinize the environment he created for student-
athletes. The Head Coach invited students for sleepovers at his home and paid for private meals
and haircuts. The Head Coach developed a close personal relationship with a male student-athlete
whom the Head Coach later employed and who eventually moved into the Head Coach’s home.
The Head Coach used the locker room and restroom designated for student-athletes, at the same
time as male student-athletes, instead of facilities designated for employees. Our investigation
found that University officials’ failure to intervene in these increasingly problematic behaviors
allowed the Head Coach to do as he pleased without consequence, including engaging in physical
sexual assaults and sex discrimination against his student-athletes.

The University’s Swimming and Diving Team is made up of both male and female
students, with up to 79 students on the team at a time and one head coach at the helm. Under the
Head Coach, men and women practiced together, trained together, and attended swim meets and
conference competitions together. Swimmers practiced in co-ed groups based on their events. In
addition to the time the team spent together at practice and in competition, the Head Coach
regularly held official and unofficial gatherings at his home, hosting team members, alumni, and
University administrators. He also urged teammates to socialize outside of team activities, and to
date romantically, leading several students to quip that the Head Coach encouraged “Swimcest.”

Our investigation found that, under the guise of building team “unity,” the Head Coach
created an abusive environment for student-athletes. As their head coach, he exerted influence
over students’ day-to-day lives, with a hand in not only their athletic activities, but in every facet
of their college experience, from scholarships, housing, and academics, to conduct violations and
interpersonal conflicts. He demanded to know everything about the student-athletes: not just their
grades and schedules, but also their family dynamics, alcohol consumption, dating and sex lives,
and details about intimate health issues ranging from mental health to sexually transmitted
infections. Even for issues that clearly fell within the ambit of other University offices—such as
Student Conduct and Community Standards, the Counseling Center, Residential Life, and,
critically, the Title IX Office1—the Head Coach required students to go through him, and only
him, rather than the offices responsible for student support. As a result, he was the funnel through
which all things passed for hundreds of student-athletes throughout the course of their academic
careers at the University. Many student-athletes and employees who worked under the Head
Coach agreed that he demanded to be at the center of all information about his team. Though some
averred he had the team’s best interests in mind, others said that he weaponized information against
student-athletes to sexually abuse male student-athletes and control and manipulate team dynamics
in a manner that harmed female student-athletes.

A. The Men’s Team

“Everyone allowed it.”

Based on our investigation, the Department found that the University failed to adequately
respond to allegations that the Head Coach created a sexually hostile environment for male
student-athletes, and that those failures both subjected students to further harassment and rendered

1
Because the University has housed its Title IX Coordinator in various offices of different names throughout the
relevant period, we refer generally to “the Title IX Office” in this letter.

4
others vulnerable to it. Specifically, the Department found that numerous male student-athletes
were subjected to sexual abuse and assault by the Head Coach between 2015 and 2020, the time
period we focused on in this investigation.2 Several of these students continued to endure this
abuse even after a male student-athlete’s report of sexual misconduct to the Athletics Department
reached the Title IX Office in 2019. The Department further found that an unknown number of
other male student-athletes experienced a sexually hostile environment while on the Swimming
and Diving Team, despite notice to the University as early as 2015 that the Head Coach engaged
in sexual misconduct aimed at male students.

Students’ accounts of their experiences on the Swimming and Diving Team described a
hypersexualized environment where their coach—on a daily basis, in plain sight, and typically
when they wore only speedos—subjected male student-athletes to unwanted sexual touching,
inappropriate sexual comments, and other sexual misconduct. The Head Coach kissed male
student-athletes’ necks, hugged them from behind, traced his fingers down their bare stomachs
from their belly buttons toward their genitals, and massaged their bare skin. The Head Coach
asked male students about their sex lives, including relationships with other team members, and
told them about his own sex life. He asked male student-athletes if they loved him. He touched
male students’ genitals while taking their temperature as part of COVID-19 testing protocols.
These behaviors often occurred in view and earshot of other team members and other Athletics
Department staff. Several students reported to the Department their belief that Athletics
Department staff were aware of the Head Coach’s sexually inappropriate behavior towards
student-athletes. This conduct was so prevalent and so obvious, one student told us, “There’s no
way no one knew.”

In interviews with the Department, students detailed even more egregious conduct that
occurred in private settings. The Head Coach would pull male students out of the pool during
practice and ask them to come to his office to talk privately. In his office, the Head Coach gave
the male students massages, including on their upper thighs and groins. He kissed their necks and
bare upper thighs. He told them that he loved them, and he was happy they were on the team. In
a hotel room during an away sporting event, the Head Coach, wearing only underwear, revealed
details of his sex life to male students. At times, the Head Coach shared hotel rooms with
international students when he accompanied them to competitions in their home countries. He
also regularly entertained students in his home where he allegedly engaged in sexually
inappropriate behavior directed at male student-athletes.

The Head Coach’s conduct in University locker rooms and bathrooms was particularly
brazen. Though he had his own office and facilities, the Head Coach routinely entered the male
students’ locker room while they showered. When he found some student-athletes alone, the Head
Coach followed them into bathroom stalls and watched them urinate. He requested to see their
penises. He fondled their genitals and showed them his own. These students reported to us that
their coach’s sexual behavior was unwanted and abusive.

The Head Coach’s sexual harassment of male student-athletes permeated the team
environment, but he more often and more severely subjected his “favorites” to this misconduct.

2
The University’s eventual investigation, discussed below, identified a student-athlete who reported that the Head
Coach asked to see the athlete’s penis as early as the 2006-07 school year.

5
The Head Coach had a subgroup of male athletes whom he took for haircuts, off-campus meals,
and other informal gatherings, and sent late night texts of a personal nature. Some of these students
stayed at the Head Coach’s home over holiday breaks. Self-identified “favorites” confirmed to the
Department that the Head Coach gave them additional coaching, attention, and preference for
competing in certain events. Many students described a system where male student-athletes faced
a perverse choice: either succumb to the Head Coach’s sexual advances, which came with more
coaching, more competitive opportunities, and more leniency for rule violations, or decline the
Head Coach’s sexual advances, and risk losing their scholarships, housing, their “swim family,”
and other consequences. Many students we interviewed, both male and female, noted that the
Head Coach flaunted his relationship with the highest ranks of senior administration. Student-
athletes took these close relationships with University leadership as a warning: if you rebuked the
Head Coach’s advances or reported his behavior, no one would believe you, and he could ruin
your life at the University.

During our interviews, students reported that several male student-athletes experienced
kissing, massaging, fondling, and voyeurism daily, starting when they were first-year students and
lasting for years. Seniors warned freshmen about the Head Coach. Male student-athletes
concocted methods to avoid the Head Coach’s touch: they walked quickly when passing him,
crossed their arms over their pelvises, and avoided eye contact. They talked to each other about
their discomfort with the Head Coach’s sexual attention. Some considered transferring. Others
had panic attacks or their athletic performance declined. Some quit the team altogether. These
students endured the stigma, fear, and uncertainty of membership on a team where their coach’s
sexual harassment felt like an inescapable condition of participation. These student-athletes
endured unwanted sexual conduct that was objectively and subjectively offensive.

Some student-athletes told us that they did not mind the Head Coach’s hugs and kisses.
Some student-athletes viewed him as loving and playful and were not offended by the behavior
they experienced. Indeed, we spoke to students, alumni, and employees who shared positive
experiences with the Head Coach, who they described as a mentor and friend, even a father figure,
who changed their lives for the better. We carefully considered and in no way disregarded those
perspectives, and we found these people credible. Those perspectives and experiences, however,
do not alter our findings that other student-athletes experienced unwelcome conduct of a sexual
nature that was both subjectively and objectively offensive and so severe and pervasive that it
created a hostile educational environment. Our acknowledgment that some students had a different
experience also does not diminish the gravity of the University’s failure to adequately address the
sexual harassment and abuse of male student-athletes that did occur during the Head Coach’s
tenure and under the University’s watch.

The Department’s investigation found that University administrators and other staff were
in receipt of allegations that the Head Coach sexually harassed male students at least as early as
2015. On June 29, 2015, a staff member received a letter from unidentified students reporting that
“a coach or athletic dep[artment] staff member” used a locker with a direct line of sight into the
men’s showers and “has been seen removing an electronic device (camera) from this locker.” The
letter ends, “He is a real creep and makes us students uncomfortable. Help!” Upon receiving the
letter, Athletics Department staff quickly determined that the locker number referenced in the letter
was registered to the Head Coach. University records show that shortly after receiving the letter,
a member of the Athletics Department staff shared the letter with five other staff members. Before

6
alerting the University Police Department, two of those staff members opened the locker
themselves, determined that it contained the Head Coach’s backpack, removed the backpack from
the locker, and placed it in the Head Coach’s office. University police did not inspect the locker
until approximately three days later, at which time, the locker was empty. Word of the letter spread
quickly among University senior administration and other Athletics Department staff. A
University administrator told the Department that upon learning of the allegations, he and a senior
administrator went directly to the Head Coach to share the students’ allegations and warn him that
the University Police Department planned to search his locker for a camera. When officers
returned to search the locker again on July 6, 2015, they did not find a camera in the locker and
closed the criminal investigation as unfounded. As admitted by the University, the University
police’s delay and administrators’ actions rendered the investigation unreliable and ineffective.

Despite these allegations of voyeurism, the University took no further steps to investigate,
prevent the Head Coach from using the locker room with students, or otherwise ensure student
safety. No one alerted the Title IX Coordinator of the allegations: not the seven Athletics
Department staff members who knew about or saw the letter, the University police officers who
investigated the letter, or the multiple senior administrators, including those who worked in the
same office as the Title IX Coordinator. No one interviewed the male students who used the locker
room, posted notices about how to report allegations of misconduct, or took any other steps to
protect students using the locker room facility. Indeed, in response to students’ plea for help, the
University took no action beyond relying on a flawed police investigation. The Head Coach
continued to use the locker room, where he sexually harassed students for over five more years.

In 2019, the University again received notice that the Head Coach had allegedly sexually
harassed male students on his team. In May 2019, a male student-athlete told a member of the
athletics staff that his head coach had kissed and hugged him without consent. The staff member
reported the student’s allegations to the Title IX Office and identified the Head Coach by name.
Contemporaneous notes from the Title IX Office’s conversation with the staff member show that
the student also reported that other male student-athletes had similar experiences. The staff
member did not, however, disclose the reporting student’s name. As a “quasi-confidential
employee,” the University’s policies permitted the staff member to withhold the reporting
student’s name, which the student-athlete requested because he feared retaliation by his coach and
teammates. The student explicitly expressed concern that he might lose his scholarship if anyone,
particularly the Head Coach, found out about his report.

In keeping with the Athletics Department’s strict chain of command, the staff member also
informed their supervisor about the student’s allegations against the Head Coach. The supervisor,
in turn, shared the allegations with other administrators in the Athletics Department. None of these
individuals independently reported the allegations to the Title IX Coordinator, despite their
obligation to do so. At least one of these individuals, however, allegedly informed the Head Coach
of the allegations against him: days after the student-athlete’s conversation with the staff member,
the Head Coach confronted the student about making the report, then ostracized him from the team
and denied him opportunities to receive coaching.

Once in receipt of the 2019 quasi-confidential report, the Title IX Office shared the
allegations with several senior administrators, including one who had tipped off the Head Coach
to the University police’s plan to search his locker in 2015 and another who knew of the 2015

7
letter. None of these University leaders disclosed the previous allegations against the Head Coach
to the Title IX Office. The senior administrator who interfered with the 2015 University police
investigation explicitly assured the Title IX Office they had no knowledge of any allegations
concerning the Head Coach. The Title IX Office confirmed that they undertook “no investigation”
into allegations that the Head Coach was engaging in unwanted sexual touching and harassment
of male student-athletes because they did not have the name of the reporting student. Given the
nature of the allegations—the known respondent; the power dynamic between coach and student-
athlete; the reporting student’s reasonable fear of retaliation; the implication of multiple victims
of sexual misconduct by a coach; and the previous accusations of sexual misconduct against the
same individual—the failure to investigate the complaint was a clearly unreasonable response by
the University and ultimately made many other student-athletes vulnerable to sexual harassment
by their coach.

For many months following the 2019 report, the Head Coach continued to fondle, hug,
kiss, and expose his genitals to male student-athletes. It was not until November 2020, when a
group of male and female student-athletes came forward to athletics staff and the Title IX Office
to report sex discrimination by the Head Coach, that the University took any action to investigate
these allegations of sexual misconduct.

B. The Women’s Team

“He chose to protect my abuser instead of me.”

The Department found that from 2016 through 2020, female student-athletes on the
Swimming and Diving Team also experienced a hostile environment based on their sex, albeit in
different ways than the male student-athletes. Female student-athletes described how they trained
and competed in a hyper-sexualized environment. In addition to competing on a team where the
Head Coach sexually harassed their male teammates, female student-athletes were—without
repercussion and sometimes violently—sexually harassed by some of their male teammates, were
subjected to degrading comments about their bodies, and were asked invasive questions about their
sexual relationships. Following the Head Coach’s lead, male staff and student-athletes spoke
openly in practice about female student-athletes’ bodies—whether they were attractive, “bulking
up” too much, had cellulite, or were “too fat to be D-1 [athletes].” Female student-athletes told us
that their male teammates exposed their genitals to them during practice. The Head Coach
encouraged romantic relationships among the male and female student-athletes, which gave him
insight into and control over the most personal aspects of the student-athletes’ lives. Female
student-athletes reported that the Head Coach regularly asked them about their sex lives and his
interest in their romantic lives was extreme. One stated, “Our coaches knew everything: who you
were sleeping with, what you were eating . . . it was controlling and toxic.” Several female student-
athletes disclosed to the Head Coach and other athletics staff—all responsible employees under
the University’s Sexual Harassment Policy—that male student-athletes had sexually assaulted
them, stalked them, and subjected them to dating violence.

Students reported that the Head Coach generally disfavored female student-athletes, and
that their wellness and safety was second to their male peers’. Several female student-athletes we
interviewed told the Department that they struggled with mental health issues during their time on
the team, including eating disorders and anxiety, which were exacerbated by body shaming and

8
bullying by some of their male teammates and coaches. Our investigation uncovered
documentation that the Head Coach made significant efforts to help male student-athletes secure
mental health services. But female student-athletes told us that he did little, if anything, to respond
to their mental health needs. One female student-athlete told the Department that, after she
disclosed her disordered eating habits to the Head Coach, his response was, “well I eat a whole
bag of chips here and there,” and nothing more. Another female student-athlete told us that the
Head Coach provided her no assistance whatsoever after she told him about her eating disorder
and suicide attempt. On attending the University, one former female student-athlete said, “Going
there felt like a prison for a few years.”

Students reported to the Department that the Head Coach blamed the female student-
athletes for the abuse they experienced in their relationships with male teammates, and either failed
to or significantly delayed reporting those allegations to the Title IX Office, choosing instead to
retain control over the situation and the students involved for as long as possible. Beginning as
early as 2016, University administrators, including the Title IX Office, knew that the Head Coach
was not reporting incidents of sexual harassment involving student-athletes to the Title IX Office,
and was instead purporting to handle such incidents himself. But the University took no action to
address this misconduct. Moreover, once notified of those allegations, the Title IX Office
responded in a clearly unreasonable manner, rendering female student-athletes vulnerable to
further abuse by their male teammates. As a result of these institutional failures, the Department
found that the female student-athletes on the Swimming and Diving Team experienced a prolonged
hostile environment based on sex, including sexual harassment and dating violence, and were
denied athletic and other educational opportunities because of their sex, all with the imprimatur of
the Head Coach.

Athletics Department staff we interviewed corroborated these students’ experiences. In

exit surveys numerous student-athletes—both men and women—explicitly reported that the Head
Coach favored the men’s team over the women’s and that he was inappropriately involved in
student-athletes’ personal lives. Athletics Department supervisors were responsible for reviewing
these surveys but took no action for several years in response to these warnings, instead bestowing
the Head Coach with entirely positive employee performance reviews year after year.

The Department also uncovered patterns of dating violence and multiple sexual assaults
perpetrated by male student-athletes against female student-athletes during the period investigated.
On more than one occasion, when female student-athletes attempted to end their relationships,
their male partners stalked them and threatened self-harm if they ended the relationship or refused
sexual advances. Rather than take action to report such conduct to the Title IX Office, however,
the Head Coach and other athletics staff created a permissive environment for such conduct.

From 2016 through 2020, multiple female student-athletes experienced dating violence and
sexual harassment at the hands of their male teammates. Athletics staff confirmed to the
Department that they knew of these instances of sexual harassment but did not report them to the
Title IX Office, as they were required to do. Instead, they told only the Head Coach, as he had
directed them to do. Female students also reported the dating violence and sexual harassment to
the Head Coach, and in response, the Head Coach improperly attempted to “mediate,” rather than
report to the Title IX Office. The “mediation” extended and exacerbated the hostile environment.
One female student-athlete told the Department that the Head Coach required her to meet in-person

9
with her ex-boyfriend who had sexually harassed and assaulted her, and then blamed her for his
conduct. An Athletics staff member admitted knowing about the sexual harassment between these
athletes and seeing the female student-athlete cry throughout practice while her ex-boyfriend
participated, but the staff member took no further action, explaining, “I didn’t know I was a
mandated reporter.”

At least two University administrators and other staff knew that male student-athletes
sexually harassed female student-athletes on the team and that the Head Coach tried to address
these situations himself. These employees also did not report the sexual harassment to the Title
IX Office, despite their own mandatory reporting obligations. Instead, some of these
administrators and staff facilitated mental health support for the male student-athletes, overlooking
the needs of female student-athletes who were involved.

Once the Title IX Office learned of these allegations of sexual harassment, its own response
was inadequate and further harmed the female student-athletes. In one circumstance, the Title IX
Office delayed outreach to a female student-athlete, whose schoolwork, athletic career, and overall
college experience suffered because of the harassment. Several female student-athletes told the
Department that seeing male student-athletes whose conduct had been reported to the Title IX
Office continue to practice with the team and face no consequences caused them to distrust the
Title IX process. Further, in two instances, the Title IX Office learned of the Head Coach’s
“mediation” of sexual harassment and failure to report, but never addressed this misconduct or
otherwise attended to the culture of non-reporting that he fostered among his team and staff.
Indeed, despite the Head Coach’s known disregard for the Title IX process, the University at one
point invited the Head Coach to serve as a member of the Title IX Board of Review. As a result,
the Head Coach continued his practices unabated, rendering female student-athletes on the team
vulnerable to continued sexual harassment by their male teammates.

During the winter of 2019, the Head Coach and other Athletics Department staff learned
of an additional instance of dating violence by a male student-athlete against his female teammate,
and again failed to report it to the Title IX Office. The abuse escalated over many months, and in
the Fall of 2020, the male student-athlete physically assaulted the female student-athlete in his off-
campus apartment. Teammates who overheard the violent attack went first to the Head Coach, as
he had instructed them to do. The Head Coach directed the student-athletes to not report the
incident to the Title IX Office, claiming that when the Title IX Office was involved the last time,
it was detrimental to the team. The Head Coach expressed sympathy and concern for the male
student-athlete’s mental health and, once again, sought support services for him, but not for the
female student-athlete. The Head Coach did not report to the Title IX Office. Instead, he required
the female student-athlete to return to practice alongside her abuser, with bruises and other physical
evidence of the violent assault. This sent a terrifying but galvanizing message to the other female
student-athletes on the team. As one student stated, “it became clear he would rather let a woman
die than report up one of his favorites.”

In the face of their coach’s disregard for their teammate’s safety, both male and female
student-athletes worked together to coordinate reports to the Title IX Office beginning in October
2020. Their reports detailed a history of sexual harassment by male student-athletes against their
female teammates over several years. The student-athletes told the Title IX Office about the many
instances in which they had gone to their coaches to report sexual harassment, and nothing was

10
done to address the conduct. Some also reported that the Head Coach himself had sexually
harassed male student-athletes on the team for years. And they reported that the Head Coach had
required them to lie about testing positive for COVID-19 to avoid pandemic protocols. This was
a tipping point. Shortly after receiving this wave of reports, the University began to investigate
some of the allegations described above.

III. Institutional Response

When the student-athletes submitted their complaints in Fall of 2020, the University’s Title
IX policies and practices were already under scrutiny. A 2018 lawsuit had alleged that the
University and campus and local police departments mishandled female students’ sexual assault
complaints against members of the University’s athletics teams. Campus-wide protests followed,
and the University launched the Retriever Courage Initiative, which focused on its response to
sexual violence and misconduct. As part of this initiative, the University retained a third-party
consultant and formed committees of faculty, staff, and students to assess campus practices for
responding to and preventing sexual harassment, including sexual assault.

In 2019, both the internal committees and external consultants had identified several areas
of concern in the University’s response to sexual harassment, some of which continued to
undermine the University’s eventual response to allegations involving the Swimming and Diving
Team. First, the University’s choice to locate its Title IX Coordinator within its Office of the
General Counsel had shaped student perception that the Title IX Coordinator was an extension of
the University’s counsel, whose main purpose was to defend the University against liability, rather
than to address students’ complaints of sex discrimination. Second, the Title IX Office lacked the
resources necessary to perform its mandated functions. In particular, the Title IX Office staff
needed more training on supporting students who had experienced trauma due to sexual
harassment and other sex discrimination, and the University provided insufficient formalized
support services to students involved in the Title IX process. Third, the Title IX Office had no
centralized repository for complaints or access to a data management system and did not analyze
available data to identify trends or deficiencies in the University’s response to sexual harassment.
Beyond the Title IX Office, responsible employees received inconsistent training on their reporting
obligations and various University departments failed to appropriately coordinate and share
information with the Title IX Office. Together, these deficiencies led students to perceive that the
Title IX Office was ill-equipped to address their complaints of sex discrimination, particularly
those involving sexual assault and misconduct. Each committee, as well as the consultants,
recommended that the University take corrective action. In September 2019, the University
informed its community that it was making changes in response to these assessments, including
moving its Title IX Office out of the Office of the General Counsel and into the newly-created
Office for Equity and Inclusion, which was tasked with coordinating the University’s compliance
with Title IX.

More than a year later, in the Fall of 2020, student-athletes came forward to complain about
the Head Coach, first about violations of COVID-19 protocols. Students told the Department that
once he was put on leave for directing athletes not to report COVID-19 symptoms, they felt safe
to report the rampant sex discrimination they had experienced for years. The Title IX Office still
lacked sufficient staff to both support these students and investigate their claims, so the University
retained outside investigators. The University placed the Head Coach on leave, then banned him

11
from campus pending the Title IX investigation, and ultimately permitted him to retire in
December 2020.

In March 2021, five days after receiving an amended notice of allegations, the Head Coach
died by suicide. Student-athletes were traumatized by his death in myriad ways; some students
grieved the death of a mentor and coach, others were triggered by the eulogizing of their abuser
and faced accusations from their teammates that it was their reports to the Title IX Office that led
to the death of their coach. The University provided some counseling options, but students told
the Department that the counselors were not sufficiently available, specialized, or supportive of
their experiences of sexual harassment. Lacking sufficient institutional support to address the
student need for supportive measures, several Title IX Office staff members resigned, and the
investigation was prolonged. When the University finally provided a draft version of the
investigative report to the complainants, it failed to redact the report, revealing witness names and
statements to all complainants rather than only those who had a right to that information.
According to student-athletes, this worsened dynamics on a team already struggling with
widespread sex discrimination and the Head Coach’s death. All told, the external investigation
took twenty months to complete, during which time complainants and witnesses felt stigmatized
and unsupported.

The University’s response to the Head Coach’s abuse was not sufficient to identify and
remedy the panoply of issues presented by these events. The investigation was overly narrow in
scope, in terms of the time period investigated, witnesses pursued, and documents reviewed. For
example, the University did not investigate allegations that the Head Coach, who oversaw a youth
program on campus, may have also abused minors, even though the University had names of
potential witnesses. The investigators’ emails were overly legalistic, which witnesses found
intimidating and said deterred them from responding to outreach. Despite objectively challenging
conditions—namely, the Head Coach’s death and the COVID-19 pandemic—the University’s
delays in completing the investigations were clearly unreasonable. Moreover, the investigation
was limited to the Head Coach’s conduct, and did not examine the many institutional factors that
allowed this abuse of power to occur, including why employees disregarded their obligation as
mandatory reporters to report the behavior to the Title IX Office and failed to otherwise exercise
their authority to protect students when they knew of potential abuse by a colleague. Officials
tasked with reforming the University’s Title IX practices told the Department that they have not
read the external investigator’s Investigative Report though it was issued in July 2022.

And so, despite numerous lawsuits, outside consultants, a campus-wide Title IX review,
and two re-brandings of the Title IX Office, our investigation found that the University has yet to
take the necessary steps to reform how it responds to sex discrimination, including sexual
harassment. For example, in 2019, students and the University’s external consultants
recommended the University hire a victim support coordinator. The University has not done so.
That person could have been a vital resource to the numerous student-athletes who sought
assistance in 2020 and may have helped prevent excessive turnover in Title IX Office personnel.
And despite the consultants’ recommendation that the University ensure the Title IX Office’s
independence from the Office of the General Counsel, that office continued to lend its staff to the
Title IX Office when the University was unable to hire replacements, heightening student distrust
of the University and that office. At the time the Department concluded its investigation, the
University was still attempting to fill longstanding vacancies in the Title IX Office.

12
 The University has not adequately addressed the needs of student-athletes who experienced
sexual harassment and sex discrimination. The University has again rebranded the Office of
Equity and Inclusion as the Office of Equity and Civil Rights. As part of those efforts, the
University conducted outreach to campus stakeholders on Title IX issues but did not engage with
the Swimming and Diving Team that was the subject of the Department’s investigation. As a
result, many student-athletes who competed under the Head Coach and endured the hostile
environment he created have now graduated or left the University with the perception that their
experience did not matter. These students deserved better.

Based on our investigation, we determined that the Athletics Department remains ill-
equipped to address the unique vulnerabilities of student-athletes to sexual harassment and sex
discrimination. Athletics Department staff need more training on Title IX, particularly because
they spend time with students in locations where students may be vulnerable to abuse, such as
locker rooms and hotels. Coaches and other athletics staff are often privy to interpersonal issues
among student-athletes, but some athletics staff we interviewed failed to understand even the most
rudimentary requirements of their reporting obligations. Further, the Athletics Department’s
chain-of-command culture demands reform, training, and accountability. One staff member told
us that he would still report sex discrimination issues to the Athletic Director, rather than the Title
IX Coordinator, inconsistent with his reporting obligations. These persistent institutional
challenges necessitate the remedies described below.

As the Department worked to conclude this investigation, it learned that students from
another athletics team—this time a club team—alleged widespread sex discrimination against their
coach and assistant coach, in a story that evoked the same one detailed in this letter. The
allegations included claims that a student reported to an Athletics Department staff member that
her coach sexually harassed her and that a staff member made a quasi-confidential report to the
Title IX Office. And yet, according to Title IX Office staff, the University took no action to
investigate that complaint. When the Title IX Office opened an investigation into a later
complaint, we understand that it learned of allegations that this head coach subjected male students
to inappropriate sexual conduct. As a result of the delayed response, these students may have
experienced an ongoing hostile environment created by their coaches. At the time we concluded
this investigation, the University’s external investigation was ongoing and, therefore, the
Department made no conclusions about these allegations. Nonetheless, the Department has
proposed a Settlement Agreement that will broadly impact the University’s Title IX compliance
moving forward. Under that proposed Settlement Agreement, the University must promptly and
appropriately investigate allegations of sex discrimination and undertake significant Title IX-
related reforms to ensure that students can participate in the University’s athletics program free
from sex discrimination.

IV. Remedies

We appreciate the University’s assurance that it is committed to fully resolving these

violations through a comprehensive Settlement Agreement. We look forward to working with the
University as it promptly implements necessary reforms, including remedies that will enhance the
strength, accountability, and independence of the University’s Title IX Office; expand training to
improve the University’s response to sex discrimination and prevention efforts; and provide

13
targeted support to ensure the safety and well-being of student-athletes. We also acknowledge the
University’s commitment to provide financial relief to certain student-athletes, subject to its state-
mandated approval process.

V. Conclusion

Our investigation revealed an enduring hostile environment based on sex in the Athletics
Department that affected many student-athletes, both male and female. But we are aware only of
the students who spoke to us, whose experiences were detailed in University documents, or who
brought their cases to the Title IX Office, despite being discouraged by their coaches or disparaged
by their teammates. These students’ experiences revealed profound systemwide problems in the
University’s response to allegations of sex discrimination that persisted for years. The Department
acknowledges that there are students who graduated or transferred who likely shared the
experiences of sexual abuse and harassment detailed in this letter, or otherwise experienced sex
discrimination during their time at the University, but who not have the opportunity to tell their
story. The Department remains available to speak to any student who would like to share their
perspective.

The Department appreciates the University’s cooperation throughout the investigation. We

look forward to working together to implement reforms that bring the University into compliance
with Title IX. If you have any questions, please contact Aria Vaughan at 202-598-9629, Megan
Abbot at 202-598-5049, Zahraa Zalzala at 202-716-4325, or Sarah Marquardt at 410-209-4801.

Sincerely,

____________________________________
Shaheena A. Simons, Chief
Whitney M. Pellegrino, Principal Deputy Chief
Veronica R. Percia, Special Litigation Counsel
Educational Opportunities Section
Civil Rights Division

14