Michigan Hockey Hazing Lawsuit
Sixteen Former Michigan Hockey Players Sue University Over Decades of Sexualized Hazing
Anonymous
Key Points
1
The lawsuit was filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Detroit, and all 16 plaintiffs are proceeding under pseudonyms because of the sensitivity of the allegations.
2
The complaint cites unusually specific alleged acts, including anal penetration with razor handles and tying players’ genitals to hockey helmets or buckets weighted with pucks.
3
The plaintiffs’ attorney, Michael Pitt, said the university had been aware of the possibility of a lawsuit for more than a year. The plaintiffs are represented by the same Michigan law firm that represented former gymnasts in litigation involving Larry Nassar.
4
The complaint points to a publicly reported 1980 hazing incident involving Michigan hockey players that resulted in suspensions, an allegation intended to establish that the university had prior notice of hazing risks.
5
Red Berenson announced in 2012 that freshman hazing rituals would no longer be tolerated, even though the lawsuit alleges that hazing practices continued during his tenure as coach.
Sixteen former University of Michigan men's hockey players filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday alleging decades of sexualized hazing between 1984 and 2001. SeattlePI reports the plaintiffs, using pseudonyms due to sensitivity, describe forced nudity, sexual touching, and simulated sex acts. The complaint claims coaches and staff knew about the abuse but did nothing to stop it, violating the players' rights under Title IX.
The lawsuit names the University of Michigan and its Board of Regents as defendants. HJNews reports players allege they faced retaliation—reduced playing time, lost scholarships, or damaged professional prospects—if they resisted participation. The case could reshape how universities monitor abuse in athletic programs and protect athletes from retaliation.
Coaches Allegedly Knew But Did Not Intervene
The complaint accuses former coaches Red Berenson and Mel Pearson of knowing about hazing and failing to stop it. DailyAdvance states Red Berenson announced in 2012 that freshman hazing rituals would no longer be tolerated—suggesting he acknowledged the practice even though it allegedly continued during his tenure. Neither coach is named as a defendant in the lawsuit.
The plaintiffs' attorney, Michael Pitt, said the university knew a lawsuit was coming for more than a year. The law firm also represented gymnasts in the Larry Nassar case, bringing expertise in institutional abuse litigation to this dispute.
Specific Allegations Describe Severe Sexual Acts
The complaint cites unusually graphic alleged incidents. SeattlePI reports accusations include anal penetration with razor handles, tying players' genitals to hockey helmets, and weighting players' genitals with pucks. Other allegations involve forced drinking, threats, and humiliating conduct framed as team traditions and loyalty tests.
Players who objected were allegedly told to be a "Michigan man" or a "good teammate." The complaint argues this framing turned abuse into coercion—participation became expected, and resistance risked playing time, scholarships, or professional harm.
University Had Prior Warning of Hockey Hazing Risks
The complaint points to a 1980 hazing incident involving Michigan hockey players that resulted in suspensions. YakimaHerald reports this earlier case is cited as proof the university knew hazing was a recurring problem in the program decades before the alleged abuse described in the lawsuit.
By raising this prior incident, plaintiffs argue the university had explicit notice that hockey players engaged in hazing. Under Title IX, institutions can be liable if they knew of abuse and showed deliberate indifference—failing to respond or investigate.
Case May Set Standard for Athletic Program Oversight
The lawsuit alleges abuse persisted across multiple generations of players over 17 years. If evidence supports claims that coaches and staff knew yet concealed the conduct, the case could establish new expectations for how universities monitor teams, report abuse, and protect athletes from retaliation.
Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages. The university has not yet publicly responded to the lawsuit, and the allegations remain unproven in court.
Sentiment
Mostly NegativeNEGATIVENEUTRALPOSITIVE
Publishers
13
Articles
143
Reach
156
Topics
A
AnonymousAuthor
