I'm pretty sure it doesn't apply. I researched some cases. I couldn't really find anything where equitable estoppal to third parties was something that ever worked.

Move on, nothing to see here :)

Whether or not the case would be tried before a jury would depend generally on (1) whether either party requests a jury and (2) whether the case presents questions of fact (which a jury or a judge, if there is no jury, can consider) or only questions of law (which are for a judge to decide). Even if there are questions of fact, if nobody requests a jury, it will be a bench trial.

And with no more knowledge than I have, it would be baseless to speculate on likelihood of dismissal.

Very good job! And I think Kevin is right -- I'm not seeing how it could be applicable here.

I was trying to frame a legal theory for "What comes around goes around." We'd have to call it "equitable estoppal as to third parties."

It sounds like it should exist, but it doesn't.

Now I'm curious - given that DZ was established so long ago at DePauw, what the (legal) agreement between the two was, if any. Surely the University gave some sort of recognition to DZ, similiar to the way a GLO grants a charter. Anyone know of such a document - even if it is in the minutes of a meeting of some sort?
Did it address housing as an issue at any time since then? Spell out anything else?
Does anyone know what the current procedure is when a GLO is invited to come on a campus? Surely in this day and age there is some sort of agreement.
AND - how will this change?

As others have mentioned I don't think it is wise for DZ HQ to actually be pursuing this lawsuit. I guess they might be looking at it in the way 'we lost the battle but we'll win the war', which isn't the wisest thing to do. The media attention that was brought upon DZ with what happened has been nothing but negative. The bad thing about it is that negative publicity on greek life really effects us all, but it is going to effect them more.

They should really have just cut their losses and moved on and worry about the active chapters. They are the ones who are going to be walking into formal recruitment in the fall with all this media attention and negative scrutiny over thier heads. Telling your collegians how to respond to negative inquiries from PNM's should be a higher priority than a frivilous lawsuit. Even if they win, which I don't think they will, the campus most likely won't allow them to come back. And even if they were "ordered" to allow DZ back on campus, their reputations are shot and girls will probably not want to join.

I think they are looking at the small picture "I want action, I want justice' and not the big picture of "what is best for our collegians and alums nationwide. What is best for all sisters who proudly wear our letters?"

My heart really goes out to the women of DZ, this is not their fault, and they really are suffering the consequences more than anyone else.

Unfortunately, no good outcome for Greek life can come of this....

If DZ wins, it makes all Greeks look bad...if Depauw wins, it can set some legal precedents that Greek life will have a hard time dealing with.

I didn't read all 9 pages, but did anyone mention what DZ is hoping to win by filing this lawsuit? Are they hoping that DePauw will allow them back on campus?

As I stated, that wouldn't be their wisest decision, unfortunately the reputation on that campus isn't great now. I don't know, worry about the other 157 chapters. Help those women. Support those women!

Excellent point and well taken!

Now, whom gets the black eye over this situation?

DePauw for saying they are doing the right thing or DZ saaying they have the right to do what they feel is best?

So now, suit, counter suit, who does it help!:rolleyes:

As has been said by many posters, just who does this help? Depaw, I am sure they do not care. DZ, well it seems to be a black eye and then, how in the overall picture does it hurt Greeks in Toto?

Mishandled, I would just venture a guess, yes.

Just read the legal complaint, and a written contract between Delta Zeta and DePauw does exist called the Greek Standards Initiative.

Linky pleeez?

Greek Standards Initiative: DePauw University & DePauw Greek Community

Not sure if it will work. The "pdf" link didn't work, but the "view as HTML" did.

ETA: It looks like DePauw has taken it down from their website. Which is why you can't get the "pdf" file but the "HTML" one. I wonder why they would do that? Hmmm.

The executive director of DZ recently did an interview or question-and-answer thingy with USA Today:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/educati...sorority_N.htm

Anyone else noticing that Ms. Menges still didn't answer most (if any) of the questions as they were asked of her???!!!!

I did.

Then again... "We gave full statements. I personally was in a lot of interviews. The media chose to print what they printed."

Where did you find the complaint?

I just looked over the initiative, and without knowing the minute details of what occured (we are really only given the "broad" picture), I'm sure the university has reason, within the initiative, for kicking them off campus. We don't know if the chapter was turning in their reports on time, or if they were recruiting correctly, etc... (as the initiative suggests).

I'm sure if this lawsuit see's the light of a courthouse/judge, both sides will present the initiative. DePauw will point out the errors DZ made and DZ will point out the errors DePauw made. It really depends on A) who made more errors and B) who makes a stronger case for the errors.

23 people in a chapther equals a struggling chapter???? you've got to be fuckin kiddin me!!! shit, i know plenty of undergrad chapters that wished they had 10 people active in their chapter, let alone 23...ionno, maybe i'm just lookin @ it from the NPHC perspective & also from someone who went to a HBCU...

Yeah, I can imagine it does seem nuts. But it's kind of a question of what's expected on a particular campus. I'm from a campus (I mean back in the day) on which chapters of 100+ girls can be considered struggling or weak because the average is 175 or something.

This kind of thread makes me wistful and wishful about NPHC rules and ideas.

(Sometimes it's a question of meeting housing obligations too. If you've got a 75 bed house. . . )

But if total for houses is around 150 yeah it's struggling. No doubt about it. Even if their (DePauw) has total at 100, they are struggling.

Also, your are misunderstanding the number, 23 women were asked to leave DZ. They only had a total of 35. Then of the 12 left, 6 quit because of what happened, which means they had a total of 6 active members when they were closed.

Really? I know this was several pages ago but the reality is people have challenged Delta Zeta on the members they wanted to keep and challenged them on their reported criteria for selecting who would be retained. We're all upset for two reasons--because DZ made those women move out when they did (which, agreed, was heinous) AND because of the reported shallowness of the criteria they used.

I am not making judgments on the merits of their case--I am simply saying that I understand what they are trying to protect and I appreciate that they don't want anyone defaming them over their membership review and membership selection.

I think challenging members to keep is somewhat different than challenging members to accept at all.

Heather17,

I think I understand your concerns, but how to you reconcile the idea of protecting groups' rights to private membership selection with filing a lawsuit dealing closely with consequences of membership decisions?

If DZ wants DePauw to state that DZ didn't not discriminate in the membership review based on appearance and race (as yesterday's newspaper article indicated DZ does) doesn't that imply to a reasonable person that DePauw would have to ascertain the standards DZ did use?

It seems to me that with the lawsuit, rather than protecting those rights, they are demanding someone breach them.

I wonder if any legal victory (and any kind of financial judgment) would be a pyrrhic victory, since, in the court of public opinion (the one that prospective members and their families occupy), this may be viewed as petty and mean spirited, and not addressing the issues that caused this mess in the first place. I wonder if there has been the concomitant effort placed on improving policies and procedures to help forestall something like this from happening again. And I wonder about the level of support amongst the DZ membership at large for this course of action.

Excellent post, Wolfman. I agree and wonder the same things completely.

I really don't think that DePauw defamed them at all, the university made their decision based on, and reported that decision to the media based on facts. They did not appreciate the way the GLO treated their students by making them move with EXTREMELY short notice RIGHT before finals. It is a FACT that they did this. I'm Not a lawyer... but doesn't TRUTH negate defamation claims ??

From dictionary.com, the definition of defamation:

1. to attack the good name or reputation of, as by uttering or publishing maliciously or falsely anything injurious; slander or libel; calumniate: The newspaper editorial defamed the politician.

This is a simple definition. DZ would have to prove that DePauw was publishing malicious or false information.

I don't have a website link for the Legal Complaint. It was sent to me as a scanned pdf file.

Aah. I have been trying to find it and was wondering how you got your hands on it. :)

Plus isn't there the 5 ones you have to prove to win a case like this? Defamation, Libel, and I can't remember the other 3. I remember learning in class that these cases are the hardest to prove.

Programming? They're people, not computers!

Any chance you can share? I'd be willing to host it online.

Couldn't these types of legal wranglings cost lots of money? How much is DZ willing to drain their resources to make a case they might lose? Perhaps all DZ wants is a big ol' "I'm sorry" from Depauw and they felt this was the way to do it.

I just read this from the USA Today interview with their president:

Did your decisions have to do with physical appearance?

A: These women are proud of who they are, but this campus created an image of Delta Zetas that was unfair, and in that environment our women could not be successful. Never ever would we want that (message) conveyed.


I read her answer as: YES it did, but only because the mean old Depauw campus environment made us. After all, we want to be successful and this is how we will be successful.

Good grief!

it's unfair that the girls in that chapter didn't conform to the campus wide standard and so they couldn't be successful? of course! let's make it so that they DO conform and then all our problems will go away. so essentially, yes.

you really have to wonder what they're thinking...they're not making this ANY easier on themselves. whoever is advising them on what to say, etc should be fired asap.

It is my understanding that besides the issue of the membership review (how it was conducted and the criteria used to decide who stays and who goes), the University decided to cut ties with DZ because of how they handled the situation post MR. Meaning how they began passing the blame around (putting a good portion of it on the University), not fully answering questions (as they did in the latest interview to USA today), denying "alumna" members their rights as sisters in good standing (financially)and their nixing all media commentary on the subject---which by the way is apparently a decision that has been recinded.

Question: Could NPC HQ send them some sort of "cease and desist" letter?

That is how it sounded to me too... and that is why a lot of people will not be rallying behind DZ on this one.

"ooooooh poor me! we were forced to do unnatural things because of the big bad depauw campus!!!" :rolleyes:

ding ding ding!!!!

"Karmic estoppel," maybe? ;)