Women’s soccer players allege sexual abuse by former athletic trainer. Photo by Jada Gangazha.
AIDAN GREGG | MANAGING EDITOR | agregg1@butler.edu
CALEB DENORME | SPORTS EDITOR | cdenorme@butler.edu
Content warning: explicit references to sexual abuse, sexual harassment, sexual assault and grooming.
Amid the 2024 fall semester, Butler University’s ongoing legal battles rage behind the scenes. Following initial complaints filed in July 2023, four current and former women’s soccer players continue to allege sexual abuse, stalking and grooming by former assistant athletic trainer Michael Howell. They further allege negligence by Butler University and Ralph Reiff, the senior associate athletic director for student-athlete health, performance and well-being.
Although a settlement conference was held on Aug. 14, the plaintiffs and defendants were unable to reach an agreement to end the legal proceedings. University president James Danko and athletic director Grant Leiendecker have declined to comment on the ongoing litigation.
Players report Howell, Title IX investigation initiated
The plaintiffs — Jane Does 1-4 — were four of six women’s soccer players who formally reported sexual abuse by Howell to the university. In September 2021, four of the six players — several of whom are now plaintiffs — reported Howell’s misconduct to women’s soccer co-head coach Tari St. John. Shortly after, St. John reported the allegations to then-Title IX coordinator Maria Kanger, who filed an official complaint against Howell on Oct. 6. Howell was subsequently placed on administrative leave.
On Sept. 29, prior to his administrative leave, Reiff informed Howell that concerns regarding his conduct were raised. The university later told Howell of the complaints before contacting law enforcement or asking for possession of his university-issued phone, despite Kanger’s knowledge that he recorded and photographed the players. The plaintiffs claim that Howell would have had time to destroy evidence because the university neglected to contact law enforcement or seize his phone.
Despite the allegations against Howell, Reiff told him to report to work on Oct. 1. Counsel for the plaintiffs alleges that Howell was instructed not to interact with women’s soccer players; Howell denies this allegation. However, plaintiffs said that Howell confronted Doe 1 and later followed her and a teammate after they left the training room.
Butler’s Title IX panel found that Howell “exploited his authority and power over [the women’s soccer players] to isolate, manipulate, control, and sexually assault [them].” The panel further found that by fostering “an emotional intimacy with [the players] and causing [them] to feel reliant upon him for [their] physical, mental and emotional well-being, [Howell] created an unconscionably abusive environment.”
Following the lawsuit filing in July 2023, the university sent an email to Butler students and families, stating that Howell was fired in the summer of 2022. They further stated, “Butler looks forward to the opportunity to show the high integrity and responsiveness of the coaches and senior personnel.”
An excerpt from the university’s statement on the lawsuit, sent July 26, 2023.
Howell denies the above claims, including the findings of the Title IX panel.
Plaintiffs allege Howell sexually abused, groomed and stalked them
According to the complaints filed by the plaintiffs Howell repeatedly exposed and touched their genitalia and breasts during lengthy massages when such contact was unnecessary. Such massages typically last no more than ten minutes, but Howell’s massages sometimes lasted up to three hours. Doe 2 said that Howell once massaged her groin so forcefully that it was bruised the next day.
Additionally, the players said that Howell rubbed his erect penis against them several times during massages and positioned himself in such a way that they could not move to prevent this contact.
The players allege that Howell sought to isolate them from their teammates and coaches. Doe 1 alleged that Howell told her “to be ‘careful’ of her close friend and teammate because he ‘knew things’ about the woman.” In addition to purchasing food for her and putting it in her locker, he reportedly told her and others “‘If I go down, I’m taking you with me.’”
Howell conducted several massages alone in his hotel rooms and offices with no windows when the team traveled away from Butler. The plaintiffs allege that co-head coaches Rob Alman and St. John knew that Howell conducted these massages in his hotel room.
The plaintiffs also claim that Howell surreptitiously photographed them using his Butler-issued phone. Further, the players said that Howell claimed to have “files of the soccer players with photos of them underage drinking.”
Howell denies the above claims.
Plaintiffs allege negligence by Butler, Reiff
In addition to the claims against Howell, the players have filed suit against the university and Reiff for negligence. Reiff was Howell’s direct supervisor; as Reiff’s employer, the plaintiffs’ team argues that Butler is also liable.
The players allege the university and Reiff failed to properly educate them — and coaches Alman and St. John — about proper athletic training procedures. Such knowledge would have allowed the players to identify Howell’s massages as sexually inappropriate earlier than they did.
As part of the Title IX proceedings, Reiff said that he worked “elbow to elbow” with convicted serial rapist Larry Nassar. Nassar was the former team doctor for USA Gymnastics, assaulting hundreds of women during his tenure until he was arrested in 2016. Reiff worked alongside Nassar for St. Vincent’s Sports Performance as a member of the medical task force for USA Gymnastics.
The plaintiff’s team has been working in their complaints to draw connections from Nassar’s crimes to Howell’s misconduct. Rachael Denhollander, a former gymnast who came forward after being sexually abused by Nassar, has joined the women’s soccer players’ legal team as counsel.
According to the players, Howell stopped submitting required written reports about the players’ injuries and his treatments to Alman and St. John. They further claim that Reiff was or should have been aware that these reports had ceased. Despite this knowledge, no one took action to ensure that athletic treatment complied with acceptable standards for student safety, including “treating student-athletes in common areas instead of a private hotel room with a bed; not entering locker rooms; communicating with and appropriately ‘draping’ or covering an athlete during treatment; asking for an athlete’s permission to move her garment during treatment; having a trainer of the same sex assist if treatment in a private room is necessary; and properly recording treatments.”
Butler and Reiff deny the above claims of negligence.
Butler, Reiff seek dismissal
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the charges against them on the grounds that there was “failure to state a claim” by the plaintiffs and that Indiana law only allows negligent supervision claims to be brought against employers, not employees. Butler argued that the claims made by the plaintiffs are covered under Indiana’s Medical Malpractice Act and that Reiff, who was Howell’s supervisor but also a Butler employee, cannot be liable for negligent supervision of Howell.
According to Indiana’s Medical Malpractice Act, all claims must pass an administrative medical review panel before coming to court. The university claimed that since Jane Does 1-4’s claims had not gone through the administrative panel, the case should be dismissed.
District Court Judge James R. Sweeney II denied the request on Jan. 22, 2024. In his decision on the defense’s motion, he contended that the plaintiffs did not have to abide by Indiana’s Medical Malpractice Act. Subsequently, the court also ruled that this case is not under the categorization of medical malpractice because whether the trainer provided sufficient medical care is irrelevant, as the alleged abuse is not medical care.
Regarding the defense’s opposition to the claims of negligence, the court found that “‘negligent supervision’ is just negligence”, stating that the university and Reiff could both be brought under the Does’ negligent supervision claims.
With both arguments by the defense falling short, the court denied the motion to dismiss and opted to move on with the cases. The defense continues to assert that this litigation should have first been subject to the Medical Malpractice Act.
Defendants object to use of pseudonyms by women’s soccer players
The defense further objected to the plaintiff’s joint motion to proceed using pseudonyms. All four players have been proceeding under Jane Doe 1-4 since the case was filed in July 2023, citing that a judge can “permit pseudonymous litigation when the balance of harms justifies it.”
The plaintiffs said that if their identities were public and if they lacked the protection pseudonyms provide, they would have “reasonable fear of embarrassment, public scrutiny, invasion of privacy and social stigmatization, all of which place them at risk of further emotional and psychological suffering and injury.”
Finally, they cited a summary judgment briefing in which Butler and Reiff did not deny the harm that has been suffered by the plaintiffs. This coincided with the findings of Butler’s Title IX Panel, which stated “the harm to [the players] was severe and the effects resulting therefrom are likely to be profound and lasting.”
The defense pushed back on the motion, alleging the plaintiffs have misused their pseudonyms, the joint motion is missing evidence, and there are less drastic means to keep anonymity.
Regarding the alleged misuse of pseudonyms, the defense said the plaintiffs have “deployed” their pseudonyms in the media against the named individuals, including their coaches and Reiff. They also contended that the joint motion had “no evidence to show a risk of harm,” while finally stating that less drastic measures such as sealing or redacting filings remained possible.
Despite the defense’s adamant responses to the plaintiffs, the court upheld their prior decision to allow the women’s soccer players to proceed under pseudonyms.
However, the plaintiffs’ ability to protect themselves with pseudonyms remains in question. Due to recent developments in case law regarding the use of pseudonyms, the court may need to reassess the ruling on the use of pseudonyms.
Judge denies university’s motion to dismiss Howell’s crossclaim
Howell filed a crossclaim against Butler University on March 4. The first of three counts in Howell’s crossclaim against the university accuses Butler of Title IX violation. Howell claims that the university discriminated against him on the basis of his sex “by ignoring procedural rules when necessary to achieve the desired result of imposing sanctions on a male employee.” He alleges that the university “caved” to social pressures in the wake of high-profile sex abuse cases in collegiate athletics.
The second count regards defamation as part of the Title IX proceedings against Howell. According to Howell, the hearing officer for the investigation made false and defamatory statements which the university republished to multiple third parties. He further claims that Reiff sought to harm him by reporting information he learned during the Title IX investigation to the state licensing board.
In the third count — similar to the women’s soccer players — Howell alleged that the university “did not maintain any written policies, procedures or protocols with respect to athletic trainers providing services to athletes, let alone providing services to athletes of the opposite sex.” The university’s failure to do so then left him vulnerable to the allegations of sexual assault brought against him by the women’s soccer players.
The university moved to the dismissal of Howell’s claims of Title IX violation and defamation. On July 29, 2024, the court denied the university’s motion. Howell seeks trial by jury and compensation for legal fees, lost wages and emotional distress.
Butler has since denied Howell’s claims that it did not maintain official policies regarding athletic trainers’ conduct and communications or restrictions for performing training services in private rooms. They have further denied Howell’s claims about the Title IX process and defamation. In terminating Howell, the university said they had legitimate reasons to terminate Howell. Further, they said “Howell’s unclean hands render him ineligible” to seek legal remedy from the university.
As of now, the crossclaim will be tried together with the women’s soccer players’ claims. However, the court may decide to split the claims and try them separately.
Trial to proceed in 2025
The trial for the complaints brought by the women’s soccer players is set to begin on June 16, 2025. A hearing regarding the use of pseudonyms by the defendants will occur on October 28, 2024.
The athletes seek to “recover [their] injuries and damages, compel Butler to institute safety protocols to protect [their] current teammates and future athletes, compel Butler to contact former student-athletes to assess whether they were also abused by Howell and need resources and assistance, prevent Howell from maintaining licensure that would give him the ability to abuse others and to hold Defendants responsible for their acts and omissions that enabled a dangerous predator to gain unfettered access to and abuse [them] and many other young female athletes.”
The Collegian will continue to investigate and report on this story.
